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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

MICHAEL JAY RUSSELL, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 17-0189

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR 2015-101236-001

The Honorable Mark H. Brain, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

The Stavris Law Firm, PLLC, Scottsdale

By Christopher Stavris

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 2-6-2018
STATE v. RUSSELL

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Jennifer B. Campbell delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown and Chief Judge Samuel A. Thumma

joined.

C A M P B E L L, Judge:

¶1 Michael Jay Russell timely appeals from his conviction and 

sentence for misconduct involving weapons, a class 4 felony under Arizona 

Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 13-3102(A)(4). After searching the 

record on appeal and finding no arguable question of law that was not 

frivolous, Russell’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), asking 

this court to search the record for reversible error. This court granted 

counsel’s motion to allow Russell to file a supplemental brief in propria 

persona, but Russell did not do so. After reviewing the entire record, we find 

no reversible error and, therefore, affirm Russell’s conviction and sentence.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1

¶2 In January 2015, police officers conducted a traffic stop of a 

vehicle in which Russell was a passenger. Russell exited and attempted to 

run away from the vehicle, but was apprehended by several officers. One 

officer then removed a loaded gun from a holster on Russell’s hip, and he 

was taken into custody. In a subsequent interview with police, Russell 

admitted he was a convicted felon who had not had his rights to carry a 

firearm restored. 

¶3 The State indicted Russell on a total of five counts for various 

charges. After multiple continuances, he was tried in January 2017 on a 

severed single count of misconduct involving weapons for knowingly 

possessing a deadly weapon while being a prohibited possessor. At trial, 

the jury heard evidence about the incident from two officers and the parties 

 

1 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury’s 

verdict and resolve all reasonable inferences against Russell. State v. Guerra, 

161 Ariz. 289, 293 (1989). 
STATE v. RUSSELL

Decision of the Court

3

stipulated that Russell had previously been convicted of a felony. The jury 

unanimously found Russell guilty.2

¶4 At sentencing, Russell waived his right to a trial and admitted 

to two historical prior convictions. The superior court sentenced Russell to 

the presumptive term of 10 years, A.R.S. § 13-703(J), for the charge of 

misconduct involving weapons, with 301 days of presentence incarceration 

credit, to run concurrently with the 10-year sentence resulting from the plea 

agreement, supra ¶ 3 n.2.

DISCUSSION

¶5 We have reviewed the entire record for reversible error and 

find none. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300. Russell received a fair trial. He was 

represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings and was present at 

all critical stages.

¶6 The evidence presented at trial was substantial and supports 

the verdict. The jury was properly comprised of eight members and the 

court properly instructed the jury on the elements of the charge, Russell’s 

presumption of innocence, the State’s burden of proof, and the necessity of

a unanimous verdict. The superior court received and considered a 

presentence report, Russell was given an opportunity to speak at 

sentencing, and his sentence was within the range of acceptable sentences 

for his offense.

CONCLUSION

¶7 We affirm Russell’s conviction and sentence. After the filing 

of this decision, defense counsel’s obligations pertaining to Russell’s 

representation in this appeal have ended. Defense counsel need do no more 

than inform Russell of the outcome of this appeal and his future options, 

unless, upon review, counsel finds an issue appropriate for submission to 

the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. State v. Shattuck, 140 

Ariz. 582, 584-85 (1984).

¶8 Russell has 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, 

if he wishes, with an in propria persona petition for review. On the court’s 

 

2 Russell later pled guilty to an amended count of theft of means of 

transportation, a class 3 felony with one historical prior conviction, and the 

remaining three charges were dismissed. 
STATE v. RUSSELL

Decision of the Court

4

own motion, we also grant Russell 30 days from the date of this decision to 

file an in propria persona motion for reconsideration.