BREARCLIFFE, Judge
THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.19(e).
Appeal from the Superior Court in Cochise County
No. S0200CR201600553
The Honorable Wallace R. Hoggatt, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Zohlmann Law Offices, Tombstone
By Robert J. Zohlmann
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Brearcliffe authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Staring and Chief Judge Eckerstrom concurred.
BREARCLIFFE, Judge:
¶1 Pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant Jennifer Hancock was convicted of possession of drug paraphernalia and placed on probation in September 2016. At a contested probation revocation hearing in August 2017, the trial court found she had violated the terms of her probation and reinstated her on intensive probation. Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530 (App. 1999), stating he has reviewed the record and has found no "tenable issue to raise on appeal." Counsel has asked us to search the record for reversible error. Hancock has not filed a supplemental brief.
¶2 Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the trial court's ruling, the evidence was sufficient to support the court's finding that Hancock had violated the terms of her probation. See State v. Vaughn, 217 Ariz. 518, n.2 (App. 2008). The evidence presented showed she had tested positive for methamphetamines and cannabis in February 2017 and for methamphetamines in April 2017. We further conclude the probationary term is appropriate. See A.R.S. §§ 13-902(A)(4), 13-901.01, 13-3415(A).
¶3 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental, reversible error and have found none. We therefore affirm the trial court's finding that Hancock violated her probation and Hancock's term of probation.