State v. Baker, 1 CA-CR 17-0313

Officer stopped Baker for erratic driving; both occupants initially gave evasive answers about destination. Baker ultimately identified a drug-associated location.
Baker consented to a vehicle search; officers found a bag containing 7.18 grams of methamphetamine and a digital scale. Baker was recorded (per officer testimony) saying he was given the methamphetamine to sell.
Baker testified at trial, admitting drug use but asserting the methamphetamine and scale were for personal use and verifying only the quantity he bought; he denied saying the drugs were for sale.
A jury convicted Baker of possession of dangerous drugs for sale (Class 2 felony) and possession of drug paraphernalia (Class 6 felony). The jury verdicts were returned collectively and confirmed without individual polling.
At sentencing the court found no aggravators, one mitigator (no prior felony convictions), and imposed concurrent terms (5 years and 1 year), awarding 37 days’ presentence credit.
Counsel filed an Anders brief asserting no arguable appellate issues; the appellate court conducted an independent review and found no reversible error, affirming convictions and sentences.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for possession for sale	State: evidence (quantity, scale, officer testimony) supports possession-for-sale conviction	Baker: testified drugs and scale were for personal use; disputed officer’s account	Court: substantial evidence supports convictions; affirmed
Admission and weight of defendant’s statements	State: officer testimony about defendant’s admission was admissible and credible	Baker: denied making admission about selling drugs	Court: credibility resolved by jury; admission weight favored State
Jury verdict confirmation procedure	State: collective confirmation sufficient	Baker: (no pro se brief raised error) — possible concern about not polling individually	Court: collective jury confirmation acceptable; no reversible error
Sentencing procedure and factors considered	State: sentence within statutory range and court followed procedure	Baker: (no specific sentencing challenge preserved)	Court: court considered PSI, allowed allocution, identified mitigator; sentence affirmed

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedure for counsel to request appellate review when no arguable issues exist)
State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969) (Anders-type appellate review recognized in Arizona)
State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530 (1999) (appellate courts must search record for reversible error under Anders/Leon)
State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582 (1984) (counsel’s duties after Anders/Leon decision; defendant’s options for petition for review)
State v. Rienhardt, 190 Ariz. 579 (1997) (viewing facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict)