Opinion text
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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.
BRANDON JAMES DROUILLARD, Appellant.
No. 1 CA-CR 25-0096
FILED 07-16-2026
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2023-007207-001
The Honorable Joseph Shayne Kiefer, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
The Susser Law Firm, PLLC, Gilbert
By Adam Susser
Counsel for Appellant
Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Alice Jones
Counsel for Appellee
STATE v. DROUILLARD
Decision of the Court
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Judge Veronika Fabian and Vice Chief Judge David D. Weinzweig
joined.
B R O W N, Judge:
¶1 This appeal is presented to us pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969). Defense counsel
has searched the record on appeal and advised us there are no meritorious
grounds for reversal. Brandon Drouillard was given the opportunity to file
a supplemental brief and has not done so. Our obligation is (1) to ascertain
whether counsel has “conscientiously performed” their duty to review the
record for arguable issues, and (2) to conduct our own review of the record
for reversible error. See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999).
¶2 On August 27, 2022, a police officer discovered that
Drouillard was driving with a suspended license. After initiating a traffic
stop, the officer saw “what appeared to be drug paraphernalia”—a piece of
tinfoil with residue—on the floorboard of Drouillard’s vehicle and decided
to “complete a further search . . . for any further evidence or contraband.”
As he made his way over to the passenger’s side, the officer noticed a folded
pair of jeans on the dashboard. The jeans contained a small plastic bag
containing methamphetamine.
¶3 Drouillard was arrested and charged with one count of
possession or use of a dangerous drug under A.R.S. § 13-3407(A)(1), a class
four felony. A jury convicted Drouillard as charged; he was absent from
trial, and the court found his absence was voluntary. The trial court
sentenced him to a 2.5-year presumptive prison sentence.
¶4 After a thorough review of the record, we find no arguable
issues for reversal. See Clark, 196 Ariz. at 541, ¶ 50. Though Drouillard was
not present for trial, he was present for his arraignment where the court
directed him to appear for all scheduled hearings. Drouillard was also
given notice that he could be tried in absentia if he failed to appear for trial.
Thus, the record does not demonstrate the court erred by finding he was
voluntarily absent. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 9.1.
2
STATE v. DROUILLARD
Decision of the Court
¶5 The record further reflects Drouillard was represented by
counsel at all critical stages of the proceedings against him. The evidence
supports the convictions, and the sentences imposed fall within the range
permitted by law. As far as the record reveals, these proceedings were
conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure
and Drouillard’s constitutional and statutory rights.
¶6 We affirm Drouillard’s conviction and sentence for
possession or use of a dangerous drug. Defense counsel has no further
obligations unless counsel finds an issue that may be appropriately
submitted to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. State v.
Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584–85 (1984). Drouillard may file either a pro se
motion for reconsideration or a petition for review within 30 days from the
date of this decision. If he files a timely motion for reconsideration, he has
15 days after that motion is decided to file a petition for review. See Ariz.
R. Crim. P. 31.21.
MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court
FILED: JR
3