State v. Castro

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

JORGE LUCIO CASTRO, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 24-0062
FILED 04-10-2025

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2021-007232-001
The Honorable Joshua Yost, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Law Office of Stephen M. Johnson, Phoenix
By Stephen M. Johnson
Counsel for Appellee
 STATE v. CASTRO
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge D. Steven Williams delivered the Court’s decision, in which
Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown and Judge Daniel J. Kiley joined.

W I L L I A M S, Judge:

¶1 Defendant Jorge Lucio Castro appeals his conviction and
sentence for possession of dangerous drugs, a class four felony, in violation
of A.R.S. § 13-3407(A)(1). Castro’s counsel filed a brief per Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969),
advising us he found no meritorious grounds for reversal and asks us to
search the record for fundamental error. Castro was given an opportunity
to file a supplemental brief in propria persona but did not do so. After
reviewing the entire record, we affirm Castro’s conviction and sentence.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

¶3 While responding to a community service call, two police
detectives encountered Castro sitting in a makeshift tent in a Phoenix
alleyway. Castro put something behind him and dropped a blanket over it
as he stood up. The detectives searched the area within Castro’s reach and
found a cigarette carton inside the tent containing small, white crystalline
rocks the detectives believed to be methamphetamine. They placed some of
the crystalline rocks into an evidence bag but did not retain the carton.
When questioned by the detectives, Castro admitted using
methamphetamine the previous day.

¶4 The detectives arrested Castro and read him his Miranda
rights. Castro again admitted smoking methamphetamine the day before
and was surprised that some remained in the carton because he thought he
and an acquaintance had used it all. The collected crystalline rocks were
later tested and confirmed to be methamphetamine.

¶5 At trial, the State called both detectives as witnesses, as well
as the forensic scientist who tested the methamphetamine. Following the
State’s case-in-chief, Castro moved for directed verdict under Arizona Rule

2
 STATE v. CASTRO
Decision of the Court

of Criminal Procedure 20. The court denied the motion. The jury later
convicted Castro as charged.

¶6 At sentencing, Castro stipulated that he had two historical
felony convictions. Finding Castro’s mental health as a mitigator, the court
sentenced Castro to a less than presumptive term of nine years’
imprisonment with credit for 863 days of presentence incarceration. The
court further ordered the sentence be served concurrently with Castro’s
sentence in an unrelated case (Maricopa County Superior Court Case No.
CR 2021-135518-001). Castro timely appealed.

DISCUSSION

¶7 We review Castro’s convictions and sentences for
fundamental error. See State v. Flores, 227 Ariz. 509, 512, ¶ 12 (App. 2011).

¶8 All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the
Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. So far as the record reveals, Castro
was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings and was present
at all critical stages including the entire trial, rendering of the verdict, and
sentencing. See State v. Connor, 163 Ariz. 97, 104 (1990) (right to counsel at
critical stages) (citations omitted); State v. Bohn, 116 Ariz. 500, 503 (1977)
(right to be present at critical stages). The jury was properly comprised of
eight jurors, and the record shows no evidence of juror misconduct. See
A.R.S. § 21-102; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 18.1(a). The trial court properly instructed
the jury on the elements of the charged felony offense, the State’s burden of
proof, and Castro’s presumption of innocence. At sentencing, Castro was
given an opportunity to speak, and the court stated on the record the factors
it considered in imposing the sentence. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 26.9, 26.10.
Additionally, the sentence imposed was within the statutory limits. See
A.R.S. §§ 13-701 to -717 (as applicable).

CONCLUSION

¶9 We affirm Castro’s conviction and sentence. Unless defense
counsel finds an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme
Court by petition for review, his obligations regarding Castro’s appeal will
end after informing him of the outcome of this appeal and his future
options. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584–85 (1984).

¶10 Castro has thirty days from the date of this decision to
proceed, if he desires, with an in propria persona petition for review to the
Arizona Supreme Court. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.21. Upon this Court’s own

3
 STATE v. CASTRO
Decision of the Court

motion, we also grant Castro thirty days from the date of this decision to
file an in propria persona motion for reconsideration.

MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court
FILED: JR

4