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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

MAURICE L. JOHNSON, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 15-0073

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2011-148351-001

The Honorable Jerry Bernstein, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix

By Terry J. Adams

Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. JOHNSON

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Kenton D. Jones delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Margaret H. Downie and Judge Jon W. Thompson joined.

J O N E S, Judge:

¶1 Maurice L. Johnson appeals his convictions of one count of 

possession of a dangerous drug and one count of possession of drug 

paraphernalia. After searching the entire record, Johnson’s defense counsel 

has identified no arguable question of law that is not frivolous. Therefore, 

in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 

104 Ariz. 297 (1969), defense counsel asks this Court to search the record for 

fundamental error. Johnson filed a supplemental brief in propria persona. 

After reviewing the record, we find no error. Accordingly, Johnson’s 

convictions and sentences are affirmed. 

FACTS1 AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 On May 18, 2011, a Tempe police detective observed Johnson 

crossing the street without using a crosswalk near the intersection of 

McClintock Drive and Apache Boulevard. The detective approached

Johnson and asked for identification. Johnson stated his identification was 

at his apartment but gave the name “Luis Jackson” and a date of birth and 

advised the detective he was from Florida. The detective called a dispatcher 

by radio to check Florida and Arizona records using the information 

Johnson provided. The query returned no record. 

¶3 The detective asked Johnson again about his name and called 

for backup. Soon thereafter, Johnson took off running. After a short chase, 

the detective caught Johnson and placed him under arrest. 

¶4 Upon arrival at the jail, Johnson was subject to a strip search

whereby the detective discovered a clear plastic baggie protruding from 

Johnson’s rectum. Inside the baggie was a piece of black plastic wrapped 

 

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

verdict and resolve all reasonable inferences against the defendant. State v. 

Harm, 236 Ariz. 402, 404 n.2, ¶ 2 (App. 2015) (quoting State v. Valencia, 186 

Ariz. 493, 495 (App. 1996).
STATE v. JOHNSON

Decision of the Court

3

around crystal shards of what the detective believed to be 

methamphetamine. The black plastic and the substance were impounded 

and later sent to the Arizona Department of Public Safety Crime Laboratory

which confirmed by chemical testing that the substance was 

methamphetamine.

¶5 On November 7, 2011, an information was filed in the trial 

court charging Johnson with one count of possession or use of 

methamphetamine, a dangerous drug, and one count of possession of drug 

paraphernalia — a baggie — used to pack, repack, store, contain, or conceal 

methamphetamine. At a preliminary hearing, Johnson was ordered to 

undergo a competency evaluation pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal 

Procedure 11. On October 9, 2012, the Rule 11 court declared Johnson 

incompetent, but he received restoration treatment and was declared 

competent upon re-evaluation in May 2013. The court ordered another 

Rule 11 evaluation in October 2013, and Johnson was again declared 

competent in January 2014. A jury trial was scheduled for February 2014.

¶6 After Johnson failed to appear for the second day of trial, the 

trial court found his appearance was waived through his voluntary 

absence. A bench warrant issued, and trial proceeded in his absence. 

Johnson was ultimately found guilty of both counts. After a fourth Rule 11 

evaluation found him competent, the trial court proceeded to sentencing 

where the State proved Johnson had three prior felony convictions. 

Johnson was sentenced to a slightly mitigated prison term of 3.5 years for 

possession of a dangerous drug, and a presumptive prison term of 1.75 

years for possession of drug paraphernalia. Johnson timely appealed, and 

we have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) sections

12-120.21(A)(1),2 13-4031, and -4033(A)(1). 

DISCUSSION

¶7 Within his supplemental brief, Johnson argues errors in the 

State’s presentation of the facts. On appeal, we do not retry conflicts in the 

evidence and affirm the jury’s verdicts so long as they are supported by 

substantial evidence. State v. Robles, 128 Ariz. 89, 90 (App. 1980). First, 

Johnson contends he accepted an offer to plead guilty of false reporting to 

law enforcement, and this trial resulted in double jeopardy. Our search of 

 

2 Absent material revisions from the relevant date, we cite a statute’s 

current version.
STATE v. JOHNSON

Decision of the Court

4

the record reveals no such plea bargain. No agreement was reached at the 

settlement conference, nor by the expiration of the State’s plea offer.

¶8 Johnson also contends the record does not support a finding 

that he was arrested on May 18, 2011. Reasonable evidence was presented 

at trial to support a finding that Johnson was arrested on May 18, 2011, and 

we therefore find no merit in Defendant’s contention. It also warrants 

noting that while Johnson does not assert a date upon which he believes the 

offense occurred, no benefit inures to the State by asserting May 18, 2011 as 

the date of arrest, and no benefit inures to Johnson by asserting it is not. 

Charges were brought against Johnson later that year, well within the 

seven-year statute of limitations. See A.R.S. § 13-107(B)(1).

¶9 Having reviewed the entire record for reversible error, we 

find none. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300 (“An exhaustive search of the record 

has failed to produce any prejudicial error.”). Under Arizona law, “[a] 

person shall not knowingly . . . [p]ossess or use a dangerous drug.” A.R.S. 

§ 13-3407(A)(1). It is also “unlawful for any person to use, or to possess 

with intent to use, drug paraphernalia to . . . pack, repack, store, contain, 

conceal, inject, ingest, inhale or otherwise introduce into the human body a 

drug in violation of this chapter.” A.R.S. § 13-3415(A). Reasonable 

evidence was presented to support the jury’s verdicts that Johnson 

possessed methamphetamine and that he used a plastic baggie to store it,

in violation of A.R.S. §§ 13-3407(A) and -3415.

¶10 All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the 

Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. The jury was properly comprised of 

eight jurors, and the record shows no evidence of jury misconduct. See 

A.R.S. § 21-102(B); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 18.1(a). The record demonstrates 

Johnson was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, and

Johnson was present for all critical stages, except the second day of trial. 

Not only was Johnson’s release from jail conditioned upon his appearance

at all proceedings, the trial court also gave him notice of the trial date and 

a warning that trial would proceed if the defendant failed to appear. These 

circumstances are sufficient to find a knowing waiver of a defendant’s right 

to appear, and we find no error in the trial court’s finding that Johnson 

voluntarily absented himself. See State v. Superior Court (Ochoa), 183 Ariz. 

139, 144-45 (App. 1995). 

¶11 At sentencing, Johnson was given an opportunity to speak, 

and the trial court stated on the record the evidence, materials, and factors 

it considered in imposing sentence. Furthermore, the sentences imposed 

were within the statutory limits. See A.R.S. § 13-703(I).
STATE v. JOHNSON

Decision of the Court

5

CONCLUSION

¶12 Johnson’s convictions and sentences are affirmed. After the 

filing of this decision, defense counsel’s obligations pertaining to Johnson’s 

representation in this appeal have ended. Defense counsel need only 

inform Johnson of the outcome of this appeal and his future options, unless, 

upon review, counsel finds an issue appropriate for review by our supreme 

court. State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85 (1984).

¶13 Johnson has thirty days from the date of this decision to 

proceed, if he wishes, with an in propria persona petition for review by our

supreme court. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.19(a). Upon the Court’s own 

motion, we grant Johnson thirty days from the date of this decision to file 

an in propria persona motion for reconsideration.