State v. Fernandez

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

JIMMY J. FERNANDEZ, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 25-0045
FILED 12-26-2025

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2024-111536-001
The Honorable Stasy D. Avelar, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Zhivago Law PLLC, Phoenix
By Kerrie Droban Zhivago
Counsel for Appellant

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge James B. Morse Jr. delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Judge Anni Hill Foster and Judge Veronika Fabian joined.
 STATE v. FERNANDEZ
Decision of the Court

M O R S E, Judge:

¶1 Jimmy Fernandez appeals his convictions for Possession and
Use of Narcotic Drugs and Possession and Use of Dangerous Drugs.
Having searched the record and found no non-frivolous questions of law,
counsel for Fernandez asks us to search the record for fundamental error.
See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969).
Fernandez had the opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propia persona
but did not do so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Phoenix Police contacted Fernandez in March 2024 because
he matched the description of a suspicious male reported for peering into
parked vehicles. Fernandez admitted to possessing about 200 fentanyl pills
and a loaded firearm. The officers searched him and ultimately found a
total of 764 fentanyl pills, approximately one ounce of methamphetamine,
and the loaded firearm.

¶3 The State charged Fernandez with Possession of Narcotic
Drugs for Sale, Misconduct Involving Weapons (prohibited possessor),
Misconduct Involving Weapons (furtherance of a drug sale), and
Possession or Use of Dangerous Drugs. Before trial, the court severed the
prohibited possessor count. At trial, the jury found Fernandez guilty only
of the lesser-included charge of Possession or Use of Narcotic Drugs and
the charge of Possession or Use of Dangerous Drugs, and acquitted him of
the Misconduct Involving Weapons count. The jury also found his
possession of a firearm to be an aggravating factor. The State dismissed the
prohibited possessor count after trial. The court sentenced Fernandez as a
category three repetitive offender after finding Fernandez had seven prior
felony convictions. For both counts, the court imposed concurrent 12-year
aggravated sentences with 326 days of presentence credit.

¶4 As a result of the convictions, the court found Fernandez in
automatic violation of his felony probation in three other cases. The court
revoked probation and imposed concurrent presumptive sentences in those
cases, to run consecutive to the sentences imposed in this case.

¶5 Fernandez timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under
A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21, 13-4031, and -4033.

2
 STATE v. FERNANDEZ
Decision of the Court

DISCUSSION

¶6 The record reveals that the superior court conducted all
proceedings in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.
The State presented sufficient evidence from which the jury could
determine Fernandez’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. West, 226 Ariz. 559, 562, ¶ 16 (2011). The superior court properly instructed the
jury on the presumption of innocence, the burden of proof, and the
elements of the charged offenses, and there is no evidence of reversible
juror misconduct. Counsel represented Fernandez at all stages of the
proceedings, and the superior court imposed sentences within the statutory
range, with proper credit given for presentence incarceration.

CONCLUSION

¶7 We have read and considered counsel’s brief and fully
reviewed the record for reversible error and find none. See Leon, 104 Ariz.
at 300–01. We affirm Fernandez’s conviction and sentence.

¶8 Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel shall inform
Fernandez 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). Fernandez shall
have thirty days from the date of this decision to file, if he desires, an in
propia persona motion for reconsideration or petition for review. See Ariz.
R. Crim. P. 31.3(a), 31.20(c), 31.21(b)(2)(A).

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

3