State v. Battle, 1 CA-CR 16-0587

In December 2015, Phoenix police stopped a car for dark window tint and failure to stop; Jeffrey Battle exited the vehicle and hurried toward a nearby driveway.
Officers smelled a strong odor of marijuana on Battle and from inside the vehicle; Battle was driving on a suspended license and had the car keys in his pocket.
During an inventory search prior to towing, officers found a handgun and green leafy substance in the center console and under the driver’s seat; forensic testing confirmed cannabis resin.
Battle admitted he had used marijuana and had been in the vehicle that day but denied knowing marijuana was inside; mail and medical records in the glove compartment linked Battle to the car.
After a bench trial, Battle was convicted of possession or use of marijuana (class 1 misdemeanor) and sentenced to one year of unsupervised probation; counsel filed an Anders brief and Battle did not file a pro se supplemental brief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to prove knowledge and possession	State: odor on person and in car, drugs located within driver’s reach, Battle admitted using marijuana — supports constructive possession and knowledge	Battle: common marijuana smell from others and testimony that smell alone didn’t prove presence or his knowledge	Court: Evidence substantial; constructive possession and knowledge established by circumstantial evidence and court rejected Battle’s testimony as not credible
Fundamental error under Anders review	State: No fundamental error; trial was fair and within sentencing limits	Defense: (via Anders) counsel raised no arguable issues; Battle did not proffer issues	Court: No fundamental or prejudicial error found; affirmed conviction and sentence

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (Anders procedure for appellate counsel when no meritorious issues)
State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530 (App. 1999) (standards for Anders-type appellate briefs in Arizona)
State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561 (2005) (definition and prejudice standard for fundamental error)
State v. Greene, 192 Ariz. 431 (1998) (sufficiency review and construing evidence favorably to sustain verdict)
State v. Soto-Fong, 187 Ariz. 186 (1996) (reversible error for insufficient evidence only when probative facts absent)
State v. Scott, 113 Ariz. 423 (standard on insufficiency of evidence)
State v. Snodgrass, 19 Ariz. App. 391 (1973) (knowledge and dominion elements for possession offenses)
State v. Hull, 15 Ariz. App. 134 (constructive possession may be shown circumstantially)
State v. Teagle, 217 Ariz. 17 (App. 2007) (constructive possession via dominion and control over location)
State v. Moses, 24 Ariz. App. 305 (presence of others does not negate constructive possession)
State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582 (procedures for appellate counsel obligations after Anders appeal)