State v. Santos
1 CA-CR 20-0449
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Jun 15, 2021Background
- Around 1:00 a.m. on July 16, 2019, a Prescott officer contacted Santos in a closed park. Santos agreed to a search.
- Officer found a methamphetamine pipe in Santos’ pocket and a fake Social Security card in his wallet. Santos said the card was fake and he used it for work.
- A grand jury indicted Santos for forgery (Class 4), possession of methamphetamine (Class 4), and possession of drug paraphernalia (Class 6).
- The State dismissed the methamphetamine count without prejudice; a jury convicted Santos of forgery and possession of drug paraphernalia.
- Sentence: suspended imposition, supervised probation with a 399-day jail term; 399 days of presentence incarceration credited and probation terminated.
- Counsel filed an Anders brief asserting no arguable appellate issues; the court reviewed the record for fundamental error and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of consent search / admissibility of evidence | Officer lawfully contacted Santos; Santos consented; evidence admissible | Santos raised no arguable challenge | No reversible error; evidence supported convictions |
| Sufficiency of evidence for forgery and paraphernalia convictions | Fake SS card plus admission supports forgery; pipe supports paraphernalia | Santos raised no arguable insufficiency claim | Convictions affirmed |
| Appellate review under Anders / counsel performance | Proceedings complied with rules; counsel represented Santos at all stages | Counsel filed Anders brief finding no meritorious issues | Court performed independent review and found no fundamental error; counsel relieved of further duties except client notice |
| Sentencing and credit for presentence incarceration | Sentences within statutory limits; 399 days credit applied | Santos raised no arguable sentencing error | Sentences affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (requires counsel to advise court when no meritorious issues exist and allows court to review record for fundamental error)
- Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969) (appellate court must independently review record when counsel files an Anders brief)
- Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229 (1999) (view facts in the light most favorable to sustaining convictions)
- Flores, 227 Ariz. 509 (2011) (review standard for fundamental error on appeal)
- Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582 (1984) (post-A�nders duties of counsel to notify client and potential review options)