State v. Watson
1 CA-CR 16-0494
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Aug 10, 2017Background
- In 2013 Watson pleaded guilty in two separate cases to possession of drug paraphernalia and possession/use of marijuana and received concurrent three-year probations with conditions prohibiting drug possession or use.
- On April 9, 2015 Watson was stopped for speeding; trooper smelled marijuana and observed green leafy material in plastic bags on the vehicle floorboard.
- Watson admitted there was marijuana in the car, was arrested, and a search revealed three bags totaling 2.93 pounds of marijuana and $1,000 in bundled cash; Watson later said he bought it that evening for $500 and had recently begun selling drugs.
- At trial the State presented expert testimony that the quantity, packaging, and bundled cash supported an intent to sell rather than personal use; the jury convicted Watson of sale/transportation of marijuana (class 2 felony) and found aggravators including possession of two pounds or more and that the offense occurred while Watson was on probation.
- The trial court revoked both prior probations, admitted one historical felony for sentencing, and imposed a presumptive 9.25-year term for sale/transportation plus consecutive short terms for the probation revocations (one of which was immediately terminated by credit).
- Defense counsel filed an Anders brief claiming no non-frivolous appellate issues; Watson did not file a pro se supplemental brief. The appellate court conducted a full record review and affirmed as modified.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove sale/transport (vs. personal use) | State: quantity (2.93 lbs), packaging, bundled cash, expert testimony support intent to sell | Watson: evidence could support personal use; State failed to prove transport for sale beyond reasonable doubt | Held: Evidence sufficient to support conviction for sale/transport of marijuana |
| Probation revocation validity | State: conviction for new offense authorizes revocation under rules | Watson: revocation improper or procedurally flawed | Held: Revocations proper; rules followed and Watson had counsel and opportunity to be heard |
| Procedural fairness (presence, counsel, jury, instructions) | State: trial complied with rules; jury instructions included lesser-included offense; defendant present and represented | Watson: alleged procedural errors or omissions (implicit) | Held: No fundamental procedural error; trial and post-trial proceedings complied with Arizona criminal procedure |
| Sentencing and credit calculation | State: sentence within statutory limits; any credit issues not raised by State | Watson: possible error in presentence incarceration credit amount | Held: Sentences affirmed; apparent over-credit favored Watson and, absent State cross-appeal, court declines to correct it |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (counsel must file brief identifying any non-frivolous issues; appellate court conducts independent review)
- State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1970) (appellate court exhaustive record search when counsel files Anders brief)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (requirements for custodial warnings and waiver of rights)
- State v. Conner, 163 Ariz. 97 (1990) (right to counsel at critical stages of proceedings)
- State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582 (1984) (counsel’s obligations after appeal when proceeding under Anders)
- State v. Dawson, 164 Ariz. 278 (1990) (appellate court cannot correct an error that benefits defendant absent State cross-appeal)