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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

DARRYL D. JOHNSON, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 13-0738

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2012-116636-001

The Honorable Brian Kaiser, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix

By Joel M. Glynn

Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. JOHNSON

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Andrew W. Gould delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Maurice Portley and Judge Jon W. Thompson joined.

G O U L D, Judge:

¶1 Defendant Darryl D. Johnson (“Johnson”) appeals from his

conviction and sentence for one count of possession of a dangerous drug 

for sale in an amount over the statutory threshold, a class two felony. 

Johnson’s 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 after a search of the entire appellate record, no arguable ground exists 

for reversal. Johnson was granted leave to file a supplemental brief in 

propria persona, and did so on February 19, 2015. 

¶2 Our obligation in this appeal is to review “the entire record 

for reversible error.” State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999). We 

have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona 

Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) sections 12-

120.21(A)(1), 13-4031 and 13-4033(A)(1) (West 2015).1 Finding no reversible 

error, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History2

¶3 On March 26, 2012, Johnson, accompanied by his girlfriend, 

arrived at the drive-thru window of a Walgreens Pharmacy and presented 

a prescription, written for his girlfriend, for 120, thirty-milligram 

Oxycodone pills. Suspecting the prescription was fraudulent, the 

pharmacist took the prescription, and instructed Johnson to return in half 

 

1 Unless otherwise specified, we cite to the current version of the 

applicable statutes because no revisions material to this decision have 

occurred.

2 We view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the 

convictions and resulting sentences. See State v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 293 

(1989).
STATE v. JOHNSON

Decision of the Court

3

an hour. The pharmacist verified the prescription was fraudulent with the 

prescribing doctor and alerted police. 

¶4 When Johnson arrived back at the Walgreens, two police 

officers made contact with Johnson and his girlfriend. After separately 

interviewing Johnson and his girlfriend about the fraudulent prescription, 

the officers placed both Johnson and his girlfriend under arrest. An officer 

searched Johnson’s vehicle and discovered a large amount of 

methamphetamine in a pink bag in the trunk. Johnson was then 

transported to the jail for further questioning. 

¶5 At the jail, Johnson was interviewed by Detective Dersa about 

the false prescription and the methamphetamine. During the interview,

Johnson told Detective Dersa about his involvement in the trafficking of 

drugs from Mexico into various states throughout the country. Johnson 

also explained that he had been fronted the methamphetamine and could 

give Detective Dersa information about a very large drug deal occurring

the next morning. Based on the detail of Johnson’s account, Detective Dersa 

believed he was relaying accurate information; however, because Johnson 

refused to give any specifics about the drug deal occurring the next 

morning without being released, Detective Dersa ended the interview and 

left Johnson in jail.

¶6 On April 2, 2012, a Maricopa County Grand Jury indicted 

Johnson, charging him with one count of illegally conducting an enterprise, 

a class three felony; one count of attempted illegally obtaining or procuring 

administration of narcotic drugs, a class four felony; and one count of 

possession of a dangerous drug for sale in an amount over the statutory 

threshold, a class two felony. 

¶7 At trial, Johnson was convicted of one count of possession of 

a dangerous drug for sale in an amount over the statutory threshold, a class 

two felony. He was sentenced to eight years flat time in prison with 162 

days credit for time served prior to sentencing. 

Discussion

¶8 We have read and considered counsel’s brief, carefully 

searched the entire record for reversible error and found none. Clark, 196 

Ariz. at 541, ¶ 49. All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance 

with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure and substantial evidence 

supported the finding of guilt. Johnson was present and represented by 

counsel at all critical stages of the proceedings. At sentencing, Johnson and 
STATE v. JOHNSON

Decision of the Court

4

his counsel were given an opportunity to speak and the court imposed a 

legal sentence.

¶9 In his pro per brief, Johnson claims that the clerk’s 

audio/visual (“AV”) recordings of the proceedings and the transcript on 

appeal have been altered. Specifically, Johnson claims that the clerk’s AV 

recording and the transcript of the jury polling should reflect the fact that 

Juror No. 5 was questioned twice but never answered. Thus, although there 

were eight jurors present, only seven jurors gave a guilty verdict when 

polled. Johnson contends that the transcript and AV recording in the 

record, which shows that eight jurors were polled and all eight agreed on 

their guilty verdict, is a false, “tampered” version of the original, true 

record. Johnson further claims he had a forensic analysis performed on the 

clerk’s AV recording that showed the recording was altered. 

¶10 Based on his claim of the “altered” record, Johnson asserts 

that the trial court erred in entering a judgment of guilt because the record 

does not show there was a unanimous verdict from eight jurors. Ariz. 

Const., art. 2, § 23 (providing that in Arizona, an eight-person jury is 

required for all criminal cases in which the sentence authorized by law is 

less than thirty years); A.R.S. § 21-102(B) (same); State v. Thorne, 193 Ariz. 

137, 138 (App. 1997) (same). 

¶11 On appeal, our review is limited to the record before us. City 

of Tucson v. Ruelas, 19 Ariz. App. 530, 531 (1973). We can only consider those 

matters which are presented to us. McKinley v. Greyhound Park, 5 Ariz. App. 

93, 94 (1967). It is an appellant’s duty to include any portions of the record 

he believes is necessary to resolve his appeal. Rancho Pescado, Inc. v. Nw.

Mut. Life Ins. Co., 140 Ariz. 174, 189 (App. 1984). “[W]here an incomplete 

record is presented to an appellate court, the missing portions of that record 

are to be presumed to support the action of the trial court.” Cullison v. City 

of Peoria, 120 Ariz. 165, 168 n.2 (1978). 

¶12 Johnson fails to include an “unaltered” version of the AV 

recordings in the record on appeal, even though he admits his defense 

counsel had access to an “unaltered” copy of the recording on his iPad. 

Johnson also fails to include the forensic report allegedly finding that the 

original AV recording had been altered.

¶13 Moreover, in the only records available to us on appeal, both 

the clerk’s AV recording and the transcript show that eight jurors were 

polled and the guilty verdict was unanimous as to all eight. Initially, ten 

jurors were seated. Juror No. 1 was dismissed at the beginning of the first 
STATE v. JOHNSON

Decision of the Court

5

day of trial, and Juror No. 5 was designated the alternate. After reaching 

and delivering their verdict, the record shows that Jurors No. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 

9, and 10 were polled, and each juror affirmed their guilty verdict. 

¶14 Accordingly, Johnson received a unanimous verdict from 

eight jurors, and the trial court did not err in entering its judgment of guilt. 

Therefore, we affirm Johnson’s conviction and sentence.

¶15 Counsel’s obligations pertaining to Johnson’s representation 

in this appeal have ended. Counsel need do nothing more than inform 

Johnson of the status of the appeal and his future options, unless counsel’s 

review reveals an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme 

Court by petition for review. State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584–85 (1984). 

Johnson shall have thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if 

he so desires, with an in propria persona motion for reconsideration or 

petition for review.