State v. Neel

NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL
AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE
ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee,

v.

JAMES FREDRICK NEEL, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 22-0073
FILED 1-12-2023

Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County
No. P1300CR202000233
The Honorable Krista M. Carman, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Alice Jones
Counsel for Appellee

Law Office of Nicole Countryman, Phoenix
By Nicole Countryman
Counsel for Appellant
 STATE v. NEEL
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Brian Y. Furuya delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge David D. Weinzweig and Judge Jennifer M. Perkins joined.

F U R U Y A, Judge:

¶1 This is an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)
and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969). Counsel for defendant James Neel
advised this court that she has found no arguable question of law after
searching the entire record and asks this court to conduct an Anders review.
Neel was given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief but did not do
so. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the record and have found no
reversible error. Accordingly, Neel’s convictions and resulting sentences
are affirmed.

¶2 “We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining
the convictions with all reasonable inferences resolved against the
defendant.” State v. Harm, 236 Ariz. 402, 404 ¶ 2 n.2 (App. 2015), quoting
State v. Valencia, 186 Ariz. 493, 495 (App. 1996).

¶3 On February 9, 2020, law enforcement responded to a possible
overdose at the home of Radeena Monroe. Monroe was later pronounced
dead at a hospital. A medical examiner listed a mixed drug intoxication as
the potential cause of death. In Monroe’s home, officers found nine
counterfeit Percocet pills later tested to be fentanyl by the Department of
Public Safety Crime Lab. A Detective extracted several text messages from
Monroe’s cellular phone between her and “Jimbo,” who was later identified
as Neel. In the messages, Neel offered to get Monroe 10 fentanyl pills for
$10 each from a third party, and they settled on her paying $80 for the 10
pills.

¶4 The State charged Neel with Count I, Sale or Transportation
of Narcotic Drugs (fentanyl), a Class 2 felony; Count II, Use of a Wire
Communication or Electronic Communication in a Drug-Related
Transaction, a Class 4 felony; and Count III, Theft of Means of
Transportation, a Class 3 felony. See Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) §§
13-3408(A)(7), -3417, -1814(A)(2).

2
 STATE v. NEEL
Decision of the Court

¶5 Neel did not testify or present any evidence during the two-
day trial. A jury found Neel guilty of Counts I and II and not guilty of Count
III. The jury also found the State did not prove its sentence enhancements,
where it alleged Neel had committed Counts I and II for pecuniary gain.
During sentencing proceedings, the superior court found Neel had two
historical felony convictions and sentenced him to mitigated concurrent
terms of 10.5-years’ and six years’ imprisonment for Counts I and II,
respectively, with 711 days of pre-incarceration credit for each count. The
court also imposed a fine of $2,000 plus 78% in surcharges, victim rights
assessments totaling $11, a penalty assessment of $13, a probation
surcharge of $20, and a public defender assessment of $25 and $300 trial fee.
Neel timely appealed.

¶6 The record shows that Neel was represented by counsel at all
stages of the proceedings and that counsel was present at all critical stages.
The record contains substantial evidence supporting the verdicts. The
sentences imposed were within statutory limits. The award of presentence
incarceration credit was accurate. And in all other respects, from the record
presented, all proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona
Rules of Criminal Procedure.

¶7 This court has read and considered counsel’s brief and has
searched the record provided for reversible error and has found none. Leon,
104 Ariz. at 300; State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537 ¶ 30 (App. 1999).
Accordingly, Neel’s convictions and resulting sentences are affirmed.

¶8 Upon the filing of this decision, counsel is directed to inform
Neel of the status of the appeal and of his future options. Defense counsel
has no further obligations unless, upon review, counsel identifies an issue
appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for
review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584–85 (1984). Neel shall have 30
days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro se
motion for reconsideration or petition for review.

AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
FILED: AA

3