Background
Tempe police responded in May 2020 to a report that two people were unconscious in a black car stopped in a traffic lane. Officers found Jesse Enes Aragon in the driver’s seat. When an officer tried to rouse him, Aragon started the car, put it in gear, and attempted to drive away, but patrol vehicles had blocked the car.
Officers found a partially filled cognac bottle, bagged “M30” pills later confirmed to include fentanyl, and evidence on Aragon’s phone referencing drug sales. They also found a loaded .40-caliber handgun with an extended magazine beneath the driver’s seat, along with a matching bullet in Aragon’s pocket. Aragon had a prior felony conviction. Juries convicted him of possession of fentanyl for sale, two aggravated-DUI counts based on a suspended license, and misconduct involving weapons.
The Court’s Holding
The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed all convictions and sentences after conducting the required independent review under Anders v. California and State v. Leon. Appointed counsel reported finding no meritorious appellate issue, and Aragon did not submit a supplemental brief despite being given the opportunity and extensions of time.
The court found no arguable reversible error. It concluded that the proceedings complied with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, Aragon had counsel at all critical stages, substantial evidence supported the verdicts, and the sentences fell within statutory limits. The superior court had imposed concurrent terms, including 13 years for the fentanyl-for-sale conviction and presumptive 10-year terms on the remaining counts.
Key Takeaways
- An Anders review requires the appellate court to examine the entire record for reversible error when defense counsel identifies no viable issue.
- The court found the evidence sufficient to support the drug, aggravated-DUI, and prohibited-possession convictions.
- The court affirmed concurrent prison sentences after finding them authorized by statute.
Why It Matters
This nonprecedential memorandum decision illustrates Arizona’s Anders procedure: even without identified appellate claims, the court independently evaluates the record and affirms only after finding no arguable basis for reversal. The court also denied Aragon’s further request for time to file a supplemental brief after multiple prior extensions.