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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

JAMES FRANCIS MARLOWE, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 20-0011 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County

No. S8015CR201901327

The Honorable Derek C. Carlisle, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Linley Wilson

Counsel for Appellee

Mohave County Legal Advocate, Kingman

By Jill L. Evans

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 1-28-2021
STATE v. MARLOWE

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Randall M. Howe delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Kent E. Cattani and Judge Cynthia J. Bailey joined.

H O W E, Judge:

¶1 James Marlowe appeals his conviction and sentence for 

possession of marijuana. His counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders 

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

advising this Court that he found no arguable questions of law and asking 

us to search the record for fundamental error. Marlowe was given an 

opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona; he has not done 

so. After reviewing the record, we affirm Marlowe’s conviction and 

sentence.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the 

judgment and resolve all reasonable inferences against Marlowe. See State 

v. Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230 ¶ 2 (App. 1998). In August of 2019, numerous 

officers of different agencies conducted a warrant search at a residence 

located at 1924 Sea Breeze. Although not the title owner, Marlowe answered 

the door and restrained a dog so that police could enter. The target of the 

warrant search was John Teresch, who was not present.

¶3 Underneath a table in the room closest to the front door, 

officers found a small thumb-sized bag containing a usable amount of 

marijuana, and a manila envelope containing Marlowe’s personal papers.

On the tabletop was writing that included the letters “P-13,” which was also 

a tattoo on Marlowe’s body, and Marlowe’s cell phone.

¶4 There were two other bedrooms. One bedroom was locked 

with no one present. A female occupied the other, her clothing and other 

items strewn about. 

¶5 At trial, Marlow was identified as the man who answered the 

door and secured the dog. Defense counsel objected to the introduction of 

“P-13” handwriting and tattoo evidence as improper evidence of gang 

affiliation. The court ruled that the evidence was relevant as to the issue of 

constructive possession, connecting the defendant to the room and vicinity 
STATE v. MARLOWE

Decision of the Court

3

where the marijuana was found and was not unfairly prejudicial since there 

was no evidence of gang affiliation presented. The court gave a limiting 

instruction to the jury with Marlowe’s consent.

¶6 At the close of the state’s case in chief, Marlowe moved for a

Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure rule 20 judgment of acquittal, which 

was denied. The court also denied a motion for a third-party defense 

instruction, since it was not noticed as a defense and not specifically 

presented, but the court ruled that Marlowe’s counsel could still argue the 

defense generally to the jury. The jury convicted Marlowe as charged.

¶7 In a bifurcated proceeding, the jury found that the state had 

proven that Marlowe committed the offense while on felony release. The 

parties agreed that there was a mandatory sentence of probation for 

possession of marijuana as a second drug offense, and a mandatory 

sentence of two years in prison for committing the offense while on release 

for a different felony offense. 

¶8 The court sentenced Marlowe to two years in prison with no 

credit for time served for committing an offense while on felony release and 

ordered him to serve one year on probation to run consecutively to his 

prison sentence. As allowed under A.R.S. § 13-603(K), the court waived 

imposition of community supervision for the offense while on felony 

release and ordered Marlowe’s term of probation to begin immediately on 

his release from prison. As a special term of probation, the court ordered 

128 days of jail time, with 128 days served. The court also ordered Marlowe 

to pay fines and fees of $130.00 per month and a probation assessment fee 

of $75.00 a month, beginning the second month of his term of probation and

to running through the end of his probation.

¶9 Marlowe filed a timely notice of appeal on December 20, 2019.

This court has jurisdiction under Arizona Constitution Article VI, Section 9, 

and A.R.S. 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and 13-4033(A)(C).

DISCUSSION

¶10 We review Marlowe’s convictions and sentences for 

fundamental error. See State v. Flores, 227 Ariz. 509, 512 ¶ 12 (App. 2011). 

We have read and considered counsel’s brief and fully reviewed the record 

for reversible error, see Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, and find none. All the 

proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of 

Criminal Procedure. Marlowe was represented by counsel through trial and 

sentencing. The sentence imposed was within the statutory guidelines. We 
STATE v. MARLOWE

Decision of the Court

4

decline to order further briefing and affirm Marlowe’s conviction and 

sentence.

¶11 Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel shall inform 

Marlowe of the status of the appeal and of his future options. Counsel has 

no further obligations unless, upon review, counsel finds an issue 

appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for 

review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584–85 (1984). Marlowe shall 

have 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a 

pro per motion for reconsideration or petition for review.

CONCLUSION

¶12 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.