State v. Villa

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

JUAN ANGEL VILLA, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 24-0174
FILED 01-14-2025

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2022-146838-001
The Honorable Timothy J. Thomason, Judge Retired
The Honorable Joseph C. Kreamer, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

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

The Law Office of Kyle T. Green P.L.L.C., Mesa
By Kyle Green
Counsel for Appellant
 STATE v. VILLA
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Jennifer B. Campbell and Judge Paul J. McMurdie joined.

C A T T A N I, Judge:

¶1 Juan Angel Villa appeals his convictions and sentences for
possession of a dangerous drug (methamphetamine) and first-degree
criminal trespass. Villa’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969),
advising that, after a diligent search of the record, he found no arguable
question of law that was not frivolous. Villa was given the opportunity to
file a supplemental brief but did not do so. Counsel asks this court to search
the record for reversible error. See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30
(App. 1999). After reviewing the record, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Phoenix Police officers encountered Villa in the fenced yard
of a residential property near downtown Phoenix. According to the
property’s owner, no one had permission to enter the property. Villa was
arrested on an unrelated matter, and officers found a small baggie
containing a white, crystalline substance tucked into an open cigarette pack
in his pocket. Later testing determined that the substance was
approximately 125 mg of methamphetamine.

¶3 Villa was charged with possession of a dangerous drug
(methamphetamine), a class 4 felony, see A.R.S. § 13-3407(A)(1), (B)(1), and
first-degree criminal trespass, a class 1 misdemeanor, see A.R.S. § 13-
1504(A)(2), (B). The State further alleged that Villa had multiple historical
prior felony convictions and that he had committed the charged offenses
while released on bond on a separate felony offense. See A.R.S. §§ 13-
105(22)(c), -703(C), (J), -708(D).

¶4 Villa testified at trial. He denied any knowledge of the
methamphetamine and stated that he was allowed on the property because
his parent owned it (although he also confirmed that law enforcement
officers had advised him previously that his family no longer owned the

2
 STATE v. VILLA
Decision of the Court

house). Villa acknowledged having multiple prior felony convictions,
including those the State had alleged for sentence enhancement.

¶5 The jury found Villa guilty as charged, and the superior court
sentenced him as a category 3 repetitive offender to concurrent terms of
incarceration, the greater of which is a mitigated term of 8 years’
imprisonment (including two years flat time) for the drug offense, with
credit for 338 days of presentence incarceration. See A.R.S. §§ 13-703(J), -
708(D). The court imposed required fees and assessments, including a
mandatory $1,000 fine (plus surcharge) for the drug offense. See A.R.S. §
13-3407(H).

¶6 Villa was granted leave to file a delayed appeal, and he filed
his notice of appeal within the required timeframe. We have jurisdiction
under A.R.S. § 13-4033(A).

DISCUSSION

¶7 We have read and considered counsel’s brief and have
reviewed the record for reversible error. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300; see also
State v. Flores, 227 Ariz. 509, 512, ¶ 12 (App. 2011). We find none.

¶8 Villa was present and represented by counsel at all stages of
the proceedings against him. The record reflects that the superior court
afforded Villa all his constitutional and statutory rights, and that the
proceedings were conducted in accordance with the Arizona Rules of
Criminal Procedure. The court conducted appropriate pretrial hearings,
and the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the jury’s
verdicts. Villa’s sentences fall within the ranges prescribed by law, with
sufficient credit given for presentence incarceration. Accordingly, we
affirm Villa’s convictions and sentences.

¶9 Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel shall inform
Villa of the status of the appeal and of his future options. See State v.
Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584–85 (1984). Counsel has no further obligations
unless, upon review, he finds an issue appropriate for submission to the
Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. See id. Villa 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.

3
 STATE v. VILLA
Decision of the Court

CONCLUSION

¶10 We affirm.

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

4