State v. Keeto

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

MICHEALITA C. KEETO, Appellant.

Nos. 1 CA-CR 24-0421, 1 CA-CR 24-0422
(Consolidated)
FILED 07-22-2025

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
Nos. CR2020-143493-001, CR2019-122879-001
The Honorable Jeffrey A. Rueter, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

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

Bain & Lauritano, PLC, Glendale
By Sheri M. Lauritano
Counsel for Appellant
 STATE v. KEETO
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Vice Chief Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court,
in which Presiding Judge Michael S. Catlett and Judge Daniel J. Kiley
joined.

W E I N Z W E I G, Vice Chief Judge:

¶1 Michealita Keeto appeals her convictions and sentences for
two counts of sale or transfer of dangerous drugs, and probation revocation
for possession or use of drug paraphernalia. After searching the record and
finding no arguable, non-frivolous question of law, Keeto’s counsel filed a
brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State
v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), asking this court to search the record for
fundamental error. Keeto had the opportunity to file a supplemental brief
but did not. After reviewing the record, we affirm Keeto’s conviction and
sentence.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY1

¶2 Keeto was on probation for possession or use of drug
paraphernalia when an undercover police officer approached and asked
where he could buy some methamphetamine. The officer handed $20 to
Keeto. She took that money, walked to a man in the area and returned with
a baggy of methamphetamine, which she handed to the officer. Keeto told
the officer where to find her if he wanted more.

¶3 The officer returned a week later and handed Keeto another
$20 for more methamphetamine. Keeto again used the money to acquire
methamphetamine for the officer.

¶4 The crime lab confirmed both baggies contained
methamphetamine. Keeto was arrested and charged with two counts of
sale or transfer of dangerous drugs, and the State petitioned to revoke her
probation.

1 We recount the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the
jury’s verdicts. State v. Nelson, 214 Ariz. 196, 196, ¶ 2 (App. 2007).

2
 STATE v. KEETO
Decision of the Court

¶5 The superior court held a four-day trial. Keeto admitted she
twice bought methamphetamine for the officer, but insisted the officer had
threatened to arrest her if she did not. The officer testified that he never
revealed he was an undercover officer or threatened Keeto. The jury found
Keeto guilty on both counts. The superior court sentenced Keeto to two
concurrent four-and-a-half-year terms of imprisonment. The court also
revoked her probation and sentenced her to six months concurrent
imprisonment for her conviction of possession or use of drug
paraphernalia.

¶6 Keeto timely appealed. We have jurisdiction. Ariz. Const. art.
6, § 9; A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031 and -4033(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶7 We have read and considered counsel’s brief and have
reviewed the record for reversible error. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300. We find
none.

¶8 Keeto was present and represented by counsel at all critical
stages of the proceedings. The record reflects that the superior court
afforded Keeto all her 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 and summarized above was sufficient
to support the jury’s verdict. Keeto’s sentence is also within the range
prescribed by law. We find no error on this record.

CONCLUSION

¶9 We affirm Keeto’s convictions and sentences. Defense
counsel’s obligations in this appeal will end once Keeto is informed of the
outcome and her future options, unless counsel finds an issue appropriate
for the Arizona Supreme Court’s review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582,
584–85 (1984). On the court’s own motion, Keeto has 30 days from the date
of this decision to proceed with a pro se motion for reconsideration or
petition for review.

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

3