State v. Pacheco

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

CARLOS ANTONIO PACHECO, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 24-0500
FILED 09-24-2026

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2021-146964-001
The Honorable Bruce Cohen, Judge, Retired

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

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

Michael J. Dew, Attorney at Law, Phoenix
By Michael J. Dew
Counsel for Appellant

STATE v. PACHECO
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma1 and Judge Andrew J. Becke joined.

C A T T A N I, Judge:

¶1 Carlos Pacheco appeals his convictions and sentences for
possession of narcotic drugs for sale and money laundering in the second
degree. Pacheco’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969),
certifying that, after a diligent search of the record, he found no arguable
question of law that was not frivolous. Pacheco 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 In December 2021, an undercover police officer saw Pacheco
approach a car in a hotel parking lot, pass an object the officer believed to
be drugs to the passenger, and receive money in return. Police pulled the
car over after it left the hotel, and the driver admitted he and his girlfriend
had gone to the hotel to buy fentanyl. Police found fentanyl pills in the car.

¶3 Pacheco left the hotel with his girlfriend, M.R. A police officer
saw Pacheco, wearing a red hoodie and carrying a backpack, at a nearby
mall. Another officer saw Pacheco and M.R. leave the mall and drive to a
Phoenix residence. After watching M.R. put the backpack inside a parked
vehicle there, officers arrested her. M.R. testified Pacheco had driven her
from the mall to her mother’s house and had left after telling her to put the
backpack in her sister’s car.

1 Judge Samuel A. Thumma was on the panel assigned to this case
until retiring effective August 28, 2026. Arizona Supreme Court Chief
Justice Ann A. Scott Timmer appointed Judge Thumma to continue to serve
on the Court through December 31, 2026, to resolve those cases in which he
previously participated like this case. See Arizona Supreme Court
Administrative Order 2026-124.

2

STATE v. PACHECO
Decision of the Court

¶4 Officers detained Pacheco as he emerged from a nearby alley.
Officers found over $7,000 in cash in a red hoodie in the alley, in Pacheco’s
pockets, and in the black backpack. The backpack also contained over 1,500
fentanyl pills.

¶5 The State charged Pacheco with possession of narcotic drugs
for sale, a class 2 felony, see A.R.S. §§ 13-3408(A)(2), (B)(2), -3401(20)(zz),
and second-degree money laundering, a class 3 felony, see A.R.S. § 13-
2317(B)(1), (E).2 The State alleged two aggravating circumstances and that
Pacheco had multiple historical prior felony convictions. See A.R.S. §§ 13-
701(D), -703; see also A.R.S. § 13-105(22).

¶6 Pacheco’s first trial ended in a mistrial. On retrial, a jury
found him guilty of the offenses listed above but found the State did not
prove the alleged aggravating circumstances.

¶7 Pacheco stipulated to two prior felony convictions, and the
superior court thus sentenced him as a category three repetitive offender to
concurrent, presumptive 15.75 and 11.25-year terms of imprisonment, with
credit for 941 days of presentence incarceration. See A.R.S. § 13-703(J). The
court also imposed required fees and assessments, including a mandatory
$3,560 fine for the drug offense. See A.R.S. § 13-3408(J).

¶8 Pacheco was granted leave to file a delayed appeal, and he
filed his notice of appeal within the required timeframe.

DISCUSSION

¶9 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.

¶10 Pacheco was present and represented by counsel at all stages
of the proceedings against him. Between December 2022 and November
2023, Pacheco waived his right to counsel and represented himself with
assistance from court-appointed advisory counsel, who was present at all
hearings during that pretrial period. The record reflects that the superior
court afforded Pacheco 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,

2 The original charges also included one count of unlawful flight from
a law enforcement vehicle, a class 5 felony, see A.R.S. § 28-622.01, but that
count was dismissed without prejudice at the State’s request.

3

STATE v. PACHECO
Decision of the Court

and the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the jury’s
verdicts. Pacheco’s sentences fall within the ranges prescribed by law, with
proper credit for presentence incarceration.

¶11 Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel shall inform
Pacheco 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. On the court’s own
motion, Pacheco 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.

CONCLUSION

¶12 We affirm.

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

4