State v. Angulo, 1 CA-CR 15-0768

On Dec. 2, 2014, police arrested Luis Sandoval Angulo outside a Food City; a search produced a plastic bag later tested and found to contain methamphetamine. Angulo admitted the substance was amphetamine.
Angulo was indicted for possession of dangerous drugs and possession of drug paraphernalia; other weapon charges were severed and later dismissed.
At trial the parties conceded the arrest and search were lawful and that the seized substance was methamphetamine; the State rested after presenting its evidence.
Angulo moved for judgment of acquittal under Ariz. R. Crim. P. 20; the motion was denied. Angulo testified, admitted four prior felonies (sanitized under Ariz. R. Evid. 609), and asserted he possessed the drugs to give to police while trying to leave the Sinaloa Cartel.
A jury convicted Angulo of both possession counts and found he was on probation at the time; the superior court found four priors and sentenced him to ten years for methamphetamine possession and a concurrent 3.75-year term for paraphernalia, with 325 days’ presentence credit.

Issue	State's Argument	Angulo's Argument	Held
Whether the Rule 20 motion (sufficiency of the evidence) should have been granted	Evidence and admissions support possession; a rational juror could convict	Insufficient evidence as to possession beyond a reasonable doubt (claimed transfer intent)	Denied; viewing evidence for the State, a rational trier of fact could convict
Whether jury selection or empanelment was improper	Jury selection complied with rules	Asserted no specific challenge to selection in record	No improprieties found
Whether jury instructions misstated the law	Instructions properly stated law for jury determination of credibility and elements	Contended instructions warranted reversal (no specific argument preserved)	Instructions reviewed de novo; no error requiring new trial
Whether sentence was lawful	Sentence within statutory limits	(Argued?) sentence improper or excessive	Affirmed; sentence within statutory limits

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (criminal appellate counsel may request withdrawal after finding no arguable issues; court conducts independent review)
State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969) (standards on counsel withdrawal and appellate review under Anders in Arizona)
State v. Piatt, 132 Ariz. 145 (1981) (jury determines witness credibility and may weigh conflicting accounts)
State v. West, 226 Ariz. 559 (2011) (standard of review for denial of Rule 20 motion: evidence viewed in light most favorable to prosecution)
State v. Mathers, 165 Ariz. 64 (1990) (same standard for Rule 20 sufficiency review)
State v. Glassel, 211 Ariz. 33 (2005) (de novo review of jury instructions to determine correct statement of law)
State v. Rienhardt, 190 Ariz. 579 (1997) (viewing facts in light most favorable to sustaining verdict)
State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582 (1984) (appellate counsel’s obligations after filing an Anders brief; notifying defendant of options)