State v. Hunsaker ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                      NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.
    UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.
    IN THE
    ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
    DIVISION ONE
    STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee,
    v.
    DEBRA ELLEN HUNSAKER, Appellant.
    No. 1 CA-CR 15-0160
    FILED 2-11-2016
    Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County
    No. S8015CR201400307
    The Honorable Steven F. Conn, Judge
    AFFIRMED
    COUNSEL
    Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
    By Joseph T. Maziarz
    Counsel for Appellee
    Mohave County Legal Advocate, Kingman
    By Jill L. Evans
    Counsel for Appellant
    MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Judge John C. Gemmill delivered the decision of the Court, in which
    Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen and Judge Kent E. Cattani joined.
    STATE v. HUNSAKER
    Decision of the Court
    G E M M I L L, Judge:
    ¶1            Debra Ellen Hunsaker (“Hunsaker”) appeals from her
    convictions and sentences for one count of possession of drug
    paraphernalia involving methamphetamine, a class 1 misdemeanor,1 and
    one count of possession of dangerous drugs, a class 4 felony. Hunsaker’s
    counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967), and State v. Leon, 
    104 Ariz. 297
    (1969), stating that she has searched
    the record and found no arguable question of law and requesting that this
    court examine the record for reversible error. Hunsaker was afforded the
    opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief but did not do so. See State v.
    Clark, 
    196 Ariz. 530
    , 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999). For the following reasons, we
    affirm.
    FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
    ¶2            “We view the facts and all reasonable inferences therefrom in
    the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions.” State v. Powers, 
    200 Ariz. 123
    , 124, ¶ 2 (App. 2001). Hunsaker resided in Lake Havasu City,
    Arizona with her boyfriend Franklin Benedict, her son Stacy Hakes
    (“Hakes”), and her son’s girlfriend Ashley Foss. On February 26, 2014, Lake
    Havasu Police Officer T.T. executed a search warrant at Hunsaker’s
    residence as part of an investigation focused on Hakes as a possible seller
    of heroin. Hunsaker was not initially a subject of the investigation.
    ¶3            After Officer T.T. read Hunsaker her Miranda2 rights at the
    residence, she agreed to speak with him. She told Officer T.T. that there
    was a meth pipe in her bedroom that belonged to Hakes. Hunsaker stated
    that she did not use drugs and that Hakes had placed the meth pipe in her
    nightstand drawer. After searching the bedroom, the police found the pipe,
    as well as usable quantities of marijuana and methamphetamine. Hunsaker
    denied knowing the drugs were in her bedroom.
    ¶4             When Officer T.T. confronted Hakes about Hunsaker’s
    possible drug use, Hakes agreed that she was using meth. At trial, Hakes
    denied saying this and testified that he had never seen Hunsaker use drugs.
    Officer T.T. testified that it was “very clear” that Hakes previously agreed
    1 Although it is often classified as a Class 6 Felony, the court ordered that
    the paraphernalia charge in this case be designated as a misdemeanor.
    2   Miranda v. Arizona, 
    384 U.S. 436
    (1966).
    2
    STATE v. HUNSAKER
    Decision of the Court
    that Hunsaker was using drugs.
    ¶5            Hunsaker     was       charged     with    possession    of
    methamphetamine, marijuana, and drug paraphernalia based on the items
    found in her bedroom. When interviewed again at the police station,
    Hunsaker stated that she found the meth pipe on the backyard patio and
    that she was the one who placed it in the nightstand drawer. She admitted
    that she had used meth within the previous year and a half.
    ¶6            Hakes testified that he moved in with Hunsaker because of
    his substance abuse issues. He stated Hunsaker had a habit of either hiding
    or disposing of his drugs and pipes, especially when his daughter was
    scheduled to come over for the weekend. When he would confront her,
    often resorting to physical threats, Hunsaker would frequently give the
    drugs back to him.
    ¶7           Although Hakes initially told police that he put the pipe in
    Hunsaker’s bedroom, he later denied moving the pipe. At trial, Hakes
    explained that he meant Hunsaker had likely taken the pipe and put it in
    her bedroom in order to confront him with it later. Hakes stated that
    Hunsaker could have found his meth pipe either in his dresser or on the
    backyard patio.
    ¶8            Hunsaker testified that she had consistently tried to get Hakes
    to stop using drugs. She stated that she often searched Hakes’s room before
    his daughter came over on weekends. Hunsaker claimed that on the day of
    the police investigation, she came home during her lunchbreak and found
    the meth pipe on the backyard patio table. She put the meth pipe in the
    nightstand drawer next to her bed.
    ¶9           The eight-member jury convicted Hunsaker of both
    possession of methamphetamine and possession of drug paraphernalia
    involving methamphetamine, and acquitted her of the marijuana-related
    charges. Hunsaker was sentenced to two concurrent terms of probation
    with standard terms, community service, fines, surcharges, and fees, as well
    as additional community service and jail time to be served upon
    recommendation of the probation officer. Hunsaker was credited for two
    days served in jail.
    3
    STATE v. HUNSAKER
    Decision of the Court
    ¶10            Hunsaker appeals her convictions and sentences. This court
    has jurisdiction under Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and
    Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) sections 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031 and
    13-4033.
    DISCUSSION
    ¶11           Having considered defense counsel’s brief and examined the
    record for reversible error, see 
    Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300
    , we find none. The
    evidence presented supports the convictions and the sentences imposed fall
    within the ranges permitted by law. As far as the record reveals, Hunsaker
    was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, and these
    proceedings were conducted in compliance with her constitutional and
    statutory rights and the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.
    ¶12           Pursuant to State v. Shattuck, 
    140 Ariz. 582
    , 584–85 (1984),
    counsel’s obligations in this appeal have ended. Counsel need do no more
    than inform Hunsaker of the disposition of the appeal and her future
    options, unless counsel’s review reveals an issue appropriate for
    submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. Hunsaker
    has thirty days from the date of this decision in which to proceed, if she
    desires, with a pro se motion for reconsideration or petition for review.
    CONCLUSION
    ¶13           Hunsaker’s convictions and sentences are affirmed.
    :ama
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 1 CA-CR 15-0160

Filed Date: 2/11/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021