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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

DEJUAN MARKEISS HOPSON, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 22-0570

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2014-104991-003

The Honorable Adam D. Driggs, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Johnny Jacquez

Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix

By Mikel Steinfeld

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 10-17-2023
STATE v. HOPSON

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court, 

in which Judge Michael S. Catlett and Judge Maria Elena Cruz joined.

W E I N Z W E I G, Judge:

¶1 Dejuan Markeiss Hopson appeals the superior court’s denial 

of his petition to expunge all records related to his conviction for possession 

of drug paraphernalia. We reject his argument and affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 The State charged Hopson with multiple counts of gang and 

drug-related offenses, including one count of possession or use of narcotic 

drugs, a class 4 felony. According to the indictment and probable cause 

statement, Hopson possessed or used the narcotic drug heroin.

¶3 Hopson entered a plea agreement with the State, pleading 

guilty to an amended count of possession of drug paraphernalia, a class 6 

designated felony. As part of that agreement, Hopson signed a written 

factual basis in which he admitted knowingly possessing “a plastic baggie 

of heroin.” The probation department issued a presentence report stating

that Hopson possessed a “small plastic baggie containing heroin” at the 

time of his arrest. Hopson did not contest the report.

¶4 The superior court suspended Hopson’s sentence and placed 

him on intensive probation. The court later revoked Hopson’s probation

and imposed a term of imprisonment equal to his credit for time served.

¶5 Here, Hopson petitioned the superior court to expunge all 

records related to his conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia under

A.R.S. § 36-2862. The State opposed the petition, arguing Hopson pled

guilty to an amended count of possession of drug paraphernalia involving

heroin, not marijuana. The State attached the indictment and sentencing 

minute entry. Before Hopson replied and without conducting a hearing, 

the superior court denied his petition, noting it had considered only the 

petition and response.

¶6 Hopson moved for the superior court to reconsider, filed his 

response and requested a hearing. For the first time, he argued that he 
STATE v. HOPSON

Decision of the Court

3

possessed “cannabis resin” at the time of his arrest, and the conviction was 

therefore a marijuana-related offense under A.R.S. § 36-2862. After 

reviewing the pleadings, the court found Hopson’s reply unpersuasive and 

denied his motion to reconsider and request for hearing.

¶7 Hopson timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under A.R.S. 

§§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, -4033(A)(3), and 36-2862(F).

DISCUSSION

¶8 Hopson argues the superior court failed to comply with the 

requirements of A.R.S. § 36-2862 and Rule 36 in denying his petition for 

expungement. He contends that the court erred by (1) failing to conduct a 

hearing; (2) shifting the burden of proof; (3) denying the petition before he 

replied; and (4) failing to make findings of fact and conclusions of law. He 

asks that we vacate the court’s order and remand for proceedings in 

accordance with the law. We review the denial of a petition for 

expungement for an abuse of discretion, but review issues of statutory 

interpretation de novo. State v. Hall, 234 Ariz. 374, 375, ¶ 3 (App. 2014).

¶9 In November 2020, Arizona voters adopted Proposition 207, 

the Smart and Safe Arizona Act, which authorized expungement of certain 

marijuana-related offenses. The Act was codified in § 36-2862(A). Our 

supreme court enacted Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 to provide 

additional guidelines for expungement.

¶10 As relevant here, § 36-2862(A) authorizes individuals to

petition the superior court to expunge the records related to: (1) their

“arrest, charge, adjudication, conviction or sentence” for offenses involving 

the possession of “two and one-half ounces or less of marijuana, of which 

not more than twelve and one-half grams was in the form of marijuana 

concentrate,” or (2) the possession of “paraphernalia relating to the 

cultivation, manufacture, processing or consumption of marijuana.” A.R.S. 

§ 36-2862(A)(1), (3). When petitioned “pursuant to this section,”

1. The court shall notify the prosecuting agency of the filing 

of the petition, and allow the prosecuting agency to respond 

to the petition within thirty days.

2. The court may hold a hearing . . . [i]f the court concludes 

there are genuine disputes of fact regarding whether the 

petition should be granted.
STATE v. HOPSON

Decision of the Court

4

3. The court shall grant the petition unless the prosecuting 

agency establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the 

petitioner is not eligible for expungement.

4. The court shall issue a signed order or minute entry 

granting or denying the petition in which it makes findings of 

fact and conclusions of law.

A.R.S. § 36-2862(B)(1)–(4).

¶11 Rule 36 similarly authorizes the court to conduct a hearing if 

“there are genuine issues of fact,” allows the parties to file a response and 

reply, and requires the court to make “findings of fact and conclusions of 

law.” Ariz. R. Crim. P. 36(b)(4)–(5), (c)(1), (d)(5).

¶12 Rule 36 places the burden of proof on the State, but provides 

the superior court “must grant the petition unless the prosecuting agency 

establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the offense is not eligible 

for expungement or if the court finds that the offense identified in the 

petition is not eligible for expungement.” Ariz. R. Crim. P. 36(d)(3). The 

court may deny a petition if it finds the offense facially ineligible for 

expungement. State v. Ibarra, 254 Ariz. 320, 324, ¶ 11 (App. 2022).

¶13 All record evidence demonstrated that Hopson was convicted 

of a heroin-related offense, not a marijuana-related offense. For that reason, 

his conviction did not qualify for expungement under § 36-2862(A). A 

hearing was not warranted because the pleadings raised no “genuine 

disputes of fact,” Ariz. R. Crim. P. 36(c)(1), and the superior court correctly 

rejected the petition as facially ineligible for expungement, Ariz. R. Crim. P. 

36(d)(3). And because the petition was facially ineligible, the court need not 

have waited for Hopson’s reply. Even so, the court later reviewed 

Hopson’s reply and found it unpersuasive.

¶14 Lastly, a lack of findings under A.R.S. § 36-2862(B)(4) and 

Rule 36(d)(5) “will not automatically invalidate an order,” and require 

remand only “if we cannot determine the factual basis of [the court’s]

conclusion or whether it was legally sound.” State v. Santillanes, ___ Ariz. 

___, ___, 522 P.3d 691, 698, ¶ 34 (App. 2022) (cleaned up). The court had 

sufficient information to resolve the dispute and reached the correct

decision. Id. at 698–99, ¶¶ 30, 35.
STATE v. HOPSON

Decision of the Court

5

CONCLUSION

¶15 We affirm.