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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

JOHN WILKIN MASSEY, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 21-0368

Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County

No. S8015CR202000700

The Honorable Derek C. Carlisle, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Alice Jones

Counsel for Appellee

Janelle A. McEachern Attorney at Law, Chandler

By Janelle A. McEachern

Advisory Counsel for Appellant

John Wilkin Massey, Florence

Appellant 

FILED 12-29-2022
STATE v. MASSEY

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Angela K. Paton and Judge Peter B. Swann1 joined.

C R U Z, Judge:

¶1 This appeal was filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 

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

Wilkin Massey has advised this Court that counsel found no arguable 

questions of law and asks us to search the record for fundamental error.

Massey was convicted of misconduct involving weapons, a class 4 felony. 

After reviewing the record, we affirm Massey’s conviction and sentence.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

the conviction and resolve all reasonable inferences against Massey. See 

State v. Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230, ¶ 2 (App. 1998).

¶3 In March 2020, Lake Havasu City Police Officer Anthony Path 

was dispatched to a disturbance at a McDonald’s and approached Massey. 

Officer Path found an active warrant for Massey’s arrest, and another 

officer removed a firearm and a knife from Massey’s waistband. Officer

Path arrested Massey. Both officers conducted a search incident to arrest 

and found two silver ball bearings in Massey’s pockets and tubes of black 

powder and gold blasting caps in Massey’s guitar case.

1 Judge Peter B. Swann was a sitting member of this court when the 

matter was assigned to this panel of the court. He retired effective 

November 28, 2022. In accordance with the authority granted by Article 6, 

Section 3, of the Arizona Constitution and pursuant to Arizona Revised 

Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 12-145, the Chief Justice of the Arizona Supreme 

Court has designated Judge Swann as a judge pro tempore in the Court of 

Appeals for the purpose of participating in the resolution of cases assigned 

to this panel during his term in office and the period during which his 

vacancy remains open and for the duration of Administrative Order 2022-

162.
STATE v. MASSEY

Decision of the Court

3

¶4 Officer Path transported Massey to the Lake Havasu City 

Police Department, booked him, and conducted a criminal history check. 

Officer Path found Massey’s prior felony conviction on an unrelated charge

and told Massey he was being held on a weapons misconduct charge. 

Massey told Officer Path he purchased the firearm in Parker, Arizona after 

telling the gun dealer he was a convicted felon. Massey claimed the gun 

dealer said he could legally buy the black powder pistol if he only used it 

for protection while hunting. Massey claimed he did not know he could 

not legally own a firearm.

¶5 In June 2020, a grand jury indicted Massey on one count of 

misconduct involving weapons, a class four felony; one count of possession 

of marijuana, a class six felony; and one count of possession of drug 

paraphernalia, a class six felony. Before trial, the court dismissed both 

counts of possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia.

¶6 At trial, Massey represented himself assisted by advisory 

counsel. The jury convicted Massey, and the superior court conducted the 

sentencing hearing in compliance with Massey’s constitutional rights and 

Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 26. The court found the circumstances 

of the offense to be a mitigating factor and sentenced Massey as a nondangerous, repetitive offender to the minimum term of one and one-half

years’ imprisonment. The court gave Massey 82 days’ presentence 

incarceration credit and imposed the applicable fees.

¶7 Massey timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction pursuant 

to Arizona Constitution Article 6, Section 9, and A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1),

13-4031, and -4033(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶8 We review the entire record for reversible error. State v. 

Thompson, 229 Ariz. 43, 45, ¶ 3 (App. 2012). Counsel for Massey has advised 

this court after a diligent search of the entire record, counsel has found no 

arguable question of law. Massey did not file a supplemental brief, but in 

various pleadings filed before the brief deadline, Massey generally argues

the following:

(1) “4th Amendment violations/Illegal search and seizure/false 

Arrest/false imprisonment,”

(2) “Indictment was illegally obtained,”
STATE v. MASSEY

Decision of the Court

4

(3) “Post deadline violations of discovery/evidence/Motions/

amendments to indictment/etc.,”

(4) “Improper granting of Rule #8/improper denial of Rule #8,”

(5) “Acknowledgment of AZSC Emergency Orders the Denial of AZSC 

Emergency Orders at same hearing,”

(6) “Violation of subpoena rules,”

(7) “Witness ignored/violated 2 subpoenas,”

(8) “Witness perjured himself then lied on the stand,”

(9) “NO JURISDICTION,”

(10) the Arizona Attorney General’s Office cannot represent the State on 

appeal because it “had previous access to Appellant’s files thereby creating 

a conflict of interest,”

(11) “Clerk picked and seated 13 person Jury with-out any participation by 

the State or the Defense,” and

(12) “Advisory Counsel was assigned to sabotage my case.”

Massey fails to cite to the record or legal authority, and we do not address 

these arguments further. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.10(a)(7)(A).

¶9 In his various pleadings, Massey also alleges the superior 

court judge:

(1) “misread/misunderstood/misapplied Laws,”

(2) “acted as prosecutor for entire proceedings,”

(3) “granted improper continuances to assist the State in preparing their 

case,”

(4) “presented objections and entire arguments then said he did not,”

(5) “rewrote the laws to suit himself,”

(6) “refused to allow demonstration which would have proven perjury and 

impeached witness,”
STATE v. MASSEY

Decision of the Court

5

(7) “rewrote laws [and] Definitions for Explosive and Prohibited Possessor 

to assist his own prosecution,”

(8) “refused to allow the Jury to see the Laws and Definitions pertainant 

[sic] to this case,”

(9) “stated that the Jury was too stupid to understand the laws so he had to 

rewrite them,”

(10) “refused to allow the Jury to see any . . . laws or definitions” proving

“a ‘muzzle loaded’ Derringer is NOT a firearm,” and

(11) “knowingly used privileged information of the Defendant’s case[]

obtained from the AG’s Office.”

Massey also fails to cite to the record or legal authority. See id. As such, we 

decline to address them. 

¶10 Massey claims the superior court erred in sentencing him as a 

repetitive offender because:

(1) the State did not prove he was a prohibited possessor,

(2) Mohave County Superior Court previously held he was not a repetitive 

offender,

(3) “not submitted in a timely fashion,” and

(4) the jury did not find he was a repetitive offender.

A prohibited possessor is any person who “has been convicted within or 

without [Arizona] of a felony . . . and whose civil right to possess or carry a 

firearm has not been restored.” A.R.S. § 13-3101(A)(7)(b). A person who 

has been previously convicted of a felony offense, which is not a historical 

prior felony, and now stands convicted of a subsequent offense “shall be

. . . sentenced as a category one repetitive offender.” A.R.S. § 13-703(A). 

The sentencing ranges for persons convicted of a class 4 felony without 

priors and with one nonhistorical prior felony are the same, except that the 

latter are not probation-eligible. A.R.S. §§ 13-702; -703(H), (O).

¶11 Massey admitted he knew he was a convicted felon when he 

bought the weapon, and the State proved Massey’s nonhistorical prior 

felony through certified records containing Massey’s name, birth date, 

signature, and fingerprints. The record does not show Massey’s civil right 
STATE v. MASSEY

Decision of the Court

6

to possess or carry a firearm was restored before he bought the firearm. The 

court properly sentenced Massey as a prohibited possessor.

¶12 Massey claims defense counsel was ineffective, but these 

claims may not be raised on direct appeal and instead must be presented to 

the superior court in a post-conviction relief proceeding. State ex rel. Thomas 

v. Rayes, 214 Ariz. 411, 415, ¶ 20 (2007).

¶13 We have read and considered counsel’s brief and Massey’s 

arguments, and we have 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. So far as the 

record reveals, Massey was represented by counsel or assisted by advisory 

counsel at all stages of the proceedings. The sentence imposed was within 

the statutory guidelines, and the superior court properly sentenced Massey 

as a repetitive offender, but to the minimum term. See A.R.S. §§ 13-

3102(A)(4); -3101(A)(7)(b); -703(A), (H). We decline to order further briefing 

and affirm Massey’s conviction and sentence.

¶14 Upon the filing of this decision, counsel shall inform Massey 

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). Massey shall have thirty days from

the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro per motion for

reconsideration or petition for review.

CONCLUSION

¶15 We affirm.