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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. MARK CLAYTON BAILEY, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 14-0225 FILED 1-13-2015

Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County No. S8015CR201300583 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’s Office, Phoenix By Jill L. Evans Counsel for Appellant STATE v. BAILEY Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Maurice Portley delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Patricia A. Orozco and Judge Randall M. Howe joined.

P O R T L E Y, Judge: ¶1 This is an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969). Counsel for Defendant Mark Clayton Bailey has advised us that, after searching the entire record, she has been unable to discover any arguable questions of law, and has filed a brief requesting us to conduct an Anders review of the record. Bailey was given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief but has not done so. FACTS1 ¶2 Lake Havasu City Police Department detectives served a search warrant at Bailey’s house on April 4, 2013. When searching Bailey’s bedroom, the police found a glass pipe with burnt residue in the top desk drawer next to Bailey’s wallet with his driver’s license. Police identified the pipe as a pipe used to smoke methamphetamine and arrested Bailey.

¶3 Bailey was indicted for possession of drug paraphernalia. He pled not guilty, was tried, and the jury found Bailey guilty as charged. His sentence was subsequently suspended and he was placed on probation for eighteen months, ordered to participate in drug counseling, do one hundred hours of community service, and other probation terms.

¶1 Bailey appealed the conviction and sentence. We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and Arizona Revised Statutes sections 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and -4033(A)(1).2

1 We view the facts “in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” State v. Rienhardt, 190 Ariz. 579, 588-89, 951 P.2d 454, 463-64 (1997).

2 We cite the current version of the applicable statutes absent changes material to this decision.

STATE v. BAILEY Decision of the Court DISCUSSION ¶2 We have read and considered the opening brief and have searched the entire record for reversible error. We find none. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. The record, as presented, reveals that Bailey was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, and the sentence imposed was within the statutory limits.

¶3 After this decision is filed, counsel’s obligation to represent Bailey in this appeal has ended. Counsel must only inform Bailey of the status of the appeal and Bailey’s future options, unless counsel identifies an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984). Bailey may, if desired, file a motion for reconsideration or petition for review pursuant to the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.

CONCLUSION ¶4 Accordingly, we affirm Bailey’s conviction and sentence.

:ama