State v. Solano

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

ANTHONY PAUL SOLANO, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 23-0438
FILED 01-14-2025

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2022-147949-001
The Honorable Sunita Cairo, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Law Offices of Stephen L. Duncan PLC, Scottsdale
By Stephen L. Duncan
Counsel for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Alice Jones
Counsel for Appellee
 STATE v. SOLANO
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Brian Y. Furuya delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Judge James B. Morse Jr. and Judge David D. Weinzweig joined.

F U R U Y A, Judge:

¶1 This appeal is filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969). Counsel for defendant
Anthony Paul Solano has advised that counsel found no arguable questions
of law after searching the entire record and asks us to conduct an Anders
review. Solano was convicted of possession of dangerous drugs. Solano was
given an opportunity to file a supplemental brief; he has not done so. After
reviewing the record, we affirm Solano’s convictions and sentences.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the
conviction and resolve all reasonable inferences against Solano. See State v.
Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230 ¶ 2 (App. 1998).

¶3 On December 22, 2022, just after midnight, two officers were
called to a Phoenix neighborhood where they found Solano and arrested
him. During a search incident to arrest, officers found a dollar bill rolled-
up around methamphetamine inside Solano’s sock. Officers took
possession of the methamphetamine at the station and weighed it. Both
officers identified Solano at trial. A criminalist who examined the dollar bill
also testified that the substance found inside the rolled-up dollar bill was
methamphetamine in a useable condition.

¶4 At trial, the jury was instructed to require proof of two facts
to prove the crime of possession of dangerous drugs. First, that Solano
knowingly possessed a dangerous drug, and second, that the drug was, in
fact, dangerous. The jury was instructed to find a dangerous drug to be a
substance identified by Arizona law as such, which includes
methamphetamine as was found in Solano’s possession.

¶5 Solano was tried in absentia. Solano moved for judgment of
acquittal under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 20, which the court
denied. The court found there was substantial evidence to support a
conviction based on the testimony and exhibits presented at trial. Issues of

2
 STATE v. SOLANO
Decision of the Court

voluntariness were not raised by either the attorneys or the evidence. See
State v. Smith, 114 Ariz. 415, 419 (1977); State v. Finn, 111 Ariz. 271, 275
(1974). The jury found Solano guilty.

¶6 The court conducted the sentencing hearing in compliance
with Solano’s constitutional rights and Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure
26. The court did not find any aggravating or mitigating factors for the
appealed charge. The court sentenced Solano to the presumptive 2.5 years
recommended by the Adult Probation Department, the State, and the
defense.

¶7 Solano’s sentence runs concurrently with his sentences from
two other cases. The jury’s findings in this trial and Solano’s decision to
plead guilty in another unappealable case provided cause for probation
revocation in a previous case. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 27. There are no double
jeopardy concerns as Solano’s sentences are concurrent. See A.R.S. § 13-116.

¶8 The court correctly calculated and applied 151 days of
presentence incarceration credit. See A.R.S. § 13-712(B) (a defendant is
entitled to credit for “[a]ll time actually spent in custody” credited against
imprisonment term imposed). After considering the evidence, the court
ordered Solano to pay a $20 time payment fee, a $1,790 drug offense fine, a
$20 probation assessment, a $13 criminal penalty assessment, a $2 victims’
rights enforcement assessment, and $9 victims’ rights compensation fund
assessment.

¶9 After pronouncing the sentence, the court informed Solano of
his right to appeal from his judgment and sentence in this matter and
advised him that failure to file timely will result in a loss of that right. The
court advised Solano of his right to appointed counsel to represent him on
appeal if he is indigent.

¶10 Solano timely appealed. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.2(a)(2). We have
jurisdiction over an appeal from final judgment of conviction. A.R.S. § 13-
4033(A).

DISCUSSION

¶11 As this is an Anders appeal, Solano preserved no issues, and
we review for fundamental error. State v. Gendron, 168 Ariz. 153, 155 (1991);
State v. Barraza, 209 Ariz. 441, 447 ¶ 21 (App. 2005); State v. Flores, 227 Ariz.
509, 512 ¶ 12 (App. 2011). The record shows that Solano 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

3
 STATE v. SOLANO
Decision of the Court

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.

CONCLUSION

¶12 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, Solano’s convictions and resulting sentences are affirmed.

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

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

4