State v. Caudle

── State v. Caudle ── Case No.: 1 CA-CR 24-0447 Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: March 30, 2026 Category: General 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. DREW ALLEN CAUDLE, Appellant. No. 1 CA-CR 24-0447 FILED 03-30-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2021-134731-001 The Honorable Monica Edelstein, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix By Alice Jones Counsel for Appellee The Susser Law Firm, PLLC, Chandler By Adam Susser Counsel for Appellant  STATE v. CAUDLE Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Andrew J. Becke delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Kent E. Cattani joined. B E C K E, Judge: ¶1 Defendant Drew Allen Caudle appeals his convictions and sentences for five counts of forgery, a class four felony, and five counts of acquisition or administration of narcotic drugs, a class three felony. Caudle’s counsel filed a brief per Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), certifying he found no arguable, non- frivolous question of law. See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537–38, ¶¶ 30–31 (App. 1999). Counsel asked us to review the record for any arguable issues. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988); State v. Thompson, 229 Ariz. 43, 45, ¶ 3 (App. 2012). Caudle was given an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona but did not do so. For reasons that follow, we affirm Caudle’s convictions and sentences. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions and resolve all reasonable inferences against Caudle. See State v. Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230, ¶ 2 (App. 1998). ¶3 On June 27, 2019, an Albertson’s pharmacy manager struck up a conversation with Caudle as he picked up a prescription for 180 fifteen milligram oxycodone tablets. The pharmacy manager had another patient who was looking for a referral to a new doctor, and she wondered if Caudle liked his current doctor. After Caudle failed to give what the pharmacy manager considered a “reasonable answer,” she questioned if Caudle actually knew the provider. ¶4 The next day, the pharmacy manager contacted the clinic listed on the prescription, and asked if Caudle was a patient. The clinic determined that Caudle was not a patient and that the provider whose signature appeared on the prescription never saw Caudle or prescribed medication for him. The clinic’s director of nursing and clinical operations provided this information to law enforcement. 2  STATE v. CAUDLE Decision of the Court ¶5 Law enforcement contacted the pharmacy manager, who provided copies of five prescriptions filled by Caudle in December 2018, February 2019, April 2019, May 2019, and June 2019. Each of those prescriptions contained forged signatures. The pharmacy manager identified Caudle in a photo lineup as the individual who dropped off the five paper prescriptions and picked up the filled medication. She then gave law enforcement a copy of the driver’s license on file for the five prescriptions—Caudle’s license. ¶6 Caudle was charged with five counts of forgery and five counts of acquisition or administration of narcotic drugs. Initially, Caudle entered a diversion prog