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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

JERICHO RAGSDALE SPRIGGS, Appellant. 

No. 1 CA-CR 16-0575 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2015-138845-001 

The Honorable David O. Cunanan, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Eliza C. Ybarra

Counsel for Appellee 

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix

By Tennie B. Martin

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 8-17-2017
STATE v. SPRIGGS

Decision of the Court

2 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Patricia A. Orozco1 delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Kenton D. Jones and Judge Maria Elena Cruz joined.

O R O Z C O, Judge:

¶1 Appellant Jericho Ragsdale Spriggs appeals his convictions 

and sentences for armed robbery and aggravated robbery. Spriggs argues 

the State impermissibly impeached him with his post-arrest silence. For the 

following reasons, we affirm Spriggs’s convictions and sentences.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 In August 2015, the victim, GJ, was returning home to his 

apartment, when he was followed into the complex’s secured lot by a 

Nissan Maxima. As he walked toward his apartment, someone touched GJ 

on the shoulder. GJ turned and saw Spriggs and an accomplice pointing 

guns at him. Spriggs put a gun to GJ’s head and shoved him against a wall. 

Spriggs was wearing black pants, a black shirt, a baseball hat with a blue 

bandana underneath, and blue gloves. Spriggs’s gun was black and chrome, 

and his accomplice’s gun was black.

¶3 The men took GJ’s wallet, keys, and phone and then ran back 

into the parking lot. The men were unable to leave the parking lot without 

a remote to open the gate. GJ asked a neighbor to call the police and 

retrieved his spare keys to chase the men in his vehicle. GJ used his vehicle 

to block the men into a corner of the parking lot, forcing them to abandon 

the Maxima and jump the fence. Spriggs’s fingerprints were later 

discovered inside the Maxima.

¶4 Phoenix police detective RM noticed Spriggs walking along a 

road in an area near the apartment complex. Spriggs “was sweating 

profusely,” was wearing black pants and a backpack, and had gloves 

hanging from his back pocket. Detective RM discovered two pairs of keys 

in Spriggs’s possession, one set of which belonged to GJ. Spriggs also had a 

 

1 The Honorable Patricia A. Orozco, Retired Judge of the Court of 

Appeals, Division One, has been authorized to sit in this matter pursuant 

to Article VI, Section 3 of the Arizona Constitution.
STATE v. SPRIGGS

Decision of the Court

3 

blue bandana in his front pocket and a chrome and black gun in his 

backpack. About twenty minutes after the robbery, GJ identified Spriggs as 

one of the men who robbed him.

¶5 Spriggs testified that, on the night of the robbery, he finished 

work at a nearby store around midnight and called his wife for a ride home. 

Spriggs received a call from his wife’s cousin’s boyfriend, who offered to 

give him a ride in the Maxima, a vehicle in which Spriggs had previously 

ridden several times. Spriggs asked the driver to drop him off at a nearby 

home so he could purchase marijuana cigarettes and left his backpack in 

the Maxima.2 Spriggs testified that, as he was walking toward the meeting 

point, he saw the driver running toward him. The driver handed Spriggs’s 

backpack to him and told Spriggs to run, which he did. Spriggs testified the 

first time he saw the black and chrome gun was when it was pulled out of

his backpack by the police. 

¶6 During the trial, the State impeached Spriggs with the 

inconsistencies between his testimony and his statements to police. The 

State also referenced Spriggs’s inconsistent statements during closing 

argument. Spriggs was convicted of armed robbery and aggravated 

robbery, and he pled guilty to misconduct involving weapons. He was 

sentenced to concurrent terms of 15.75, 11.25, and 10 years’ imprisonment, 

respectively.

¶7 Spriggs timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 

Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) sections 12-120.21.A.1., 13-4031, and 13-

4033.A.1.3

DISCUSSION

¶8 Because Spriggs did not object at trial to the questioning 

which forms the basis of his appeal, we review for fundamental error. See 

State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 567, ¶ 19 (2005) (citation omitted). Error is 

fundamental when it affects the foundation of the case, deprives the 

defendant of a right essential to his defense, or is an error of such magnitude 

that the defendant could not possibly have had a fair trial. Id. (citation and 

 

2 In response to a juror question, Spriggs testified he ate the marijuana 

cigarettes in the back of the police cruiser. 

3 We cite to the most recent version of statutes unless changes material 

to this decision have occurred. 
STATE v. SPRIGGS

Decision of the Court

4 

quotation omitted). To obtain reversal for fundamental error, the defendant 

bears the burden to show the error was prejudicial. Id. at ¶ 20. 

¶9 A prosecutor may not comment on a defendant’s post-arrest, 

post-Miranda silence as evidence of guilt, even for impeachment purposes.

Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 618-19 (1976); State v. Ramirez, 178 Ariz. 116, 125 

(1994) (citations omitted). A prosecutor may, however, comment on a 

defendant’s post-Miranda statements “because a defendant who voluntarily 

speaks after receiving Miranda warnings has not been induced to remain

silent.” Ramirez, 178 Ariz. at 125 (citation and quotation omitted). “When 

one who has voluntarily made statements to police officers after his arrest 

makes new exculpatory statements at trial, the fact that he failed to make 

these statements earlier may be used for impeachment.” State v. Tuzon, 118 

Ariz. 205, 207 (1978) (citation omitted).

¶10 Spriggs asserts the State impermissibly impeached him at 

trial, despite testifying that he invoked his right to counsel and to remain 

silent. However, after having invoked, Spriggs did not remain silent. 

Rather, Spriggs answered several of the detective’s questions by claiming 

he knew nothing about the robbery.4 The interview ended when Spriggs 

requested counsel. The State impeached Spriggs’s testimony at trial with 

his previous statements to police, including his assertion that he had no 

knowledge of the robbery. It is of no consequence that Spriggs explained

his inconsistent statements by noting he “learned never to give a statement 

to the police because they like to twist your words and anything. . . . I rather 

talk to my legal counsel to advise what to say and what not to say.” The 

court did not err in allowing the State to impeach Spriggs with his prior 

inconsistent statements because those statements were not involuntarily 

made and they were in contradiction to the new statements made at trial. 

See id.

 

4 Spriggs frequently admitted he told the detective he had no 

knowledge of the events in question. For example:

Q. Okay. [The] Detective . . . asked you to tell him more about 

the details and incident and how this key got in your pocket. 

And your response was, I don’t know what you’re talking 

about.

A. Exactly.
STATE v. SPRIGGS

Decision of the Court

5 

CONCLUSION

¶11 For the reasons stated above, we affirm Spriggs’s convictions 

and sentences.