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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

ELIJAH JOHNZAL SHELTON, IV, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 19-0030 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR 2015-138575-001

The Honorable Pamela S. Gates, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix

By Thomas K. Baird

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 3-3-2020
STATE v. SHELTON

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Michael J. Brown delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Jennifer B. Campbell and Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop

joined.

B R O W N, Judge:

¶1 This appeal is presented to us pursuant to Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969). Defense counsel 

has searched the record on appeal and advised us there are no meritorious 

grounds for reversal. Elijah Shelton was given the opportunity to file a 

supplemental brief but did not do so. Our obligation is to review the entire 

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

viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the 

conviction and resolving all reasonable inferences against Shelton, State v. 

Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 293 (1989). After reviewing the record, we affirm 

Shelton’s convictions and sentences.

¶2 In August 2015, E.S. and her sister were staying at a hotel to 

celebrate E.S.’s birthday and to allow E.S. to see her boyfriend, K.S. Various

family members, including E.S.’s father(“Father”), came to the hotel. When 

K.S. introduced himself, Father got upset and told K.S. to leave. K.S. 

refused to leave, but he stepped outside the hotel room to smoke, 

accompanied by E.S. Father also went outside the room and called Shelton, 

E.S.’s brother. 

¶3 When Shelton arrived, Father told him that K.S. was being 

disrespectful. Shelton then approached K.S. while he was standing near the 

top of the staircase outside the hotel room and started punching him. K.S. 

hit back while E.S. told them to stop. Shelton later claimed that K.S. was 

the one who punched him first. 

¶4 While Shelton and K.S. were fighting, they moved toward the 

top of the staircase where K.S.’s gun fell from his waistband. K.S. picked 

his gun up and pointed it at Father and Shelton. Shelton backed up and

K.S. turned and ran toward the back of the hotel. E.S. followed K.S. while 

Shelton ran downstairs to his car, returning with a gun. 
STATE v. SHELTON

Decision of the Court

3

¶5 When he found K.S. and E.S., Shelton started shooting at K.S.

and K.S. returned fire. Shelton shot K.S. in the chest and leg, and K.S. fell to 

the ground and died at the scene. E.S. was also struck in her leg and hip by 

bullet fragments. Shelton was shot in his arm and stomach. 

¶6 A grand jury returned an indictment for Shelton for firstdegree murder and aggravated assault. The State alleged three aggravating 

circumstances. At trial, Shelton claimed that K.S. shot at him first, and he 

shot back in self-defense. 

¶7 After an 11-day jury trial, the jury was unable to decide if 

Shelton was guilty of first-degree murder but found him guilty of seconddegree murder and aggravated assault. The jury also found that the State

had proved three aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. 

The superior court sentenced Shelton to concurrent terms of 15 years’ 

imprisonment for second-degree murder and 5 years’ imprisonment for 

aggravated assault with 1082 days presentence incarceration credit.1 The 

court later granted Shelton’s request to file this delayed notice of appeal. 

¶8 After a thorough review of the record, we find no reversible 

error. Clark, 196 Ariz. at 541, ¶ 50. The record reflects Shelton was present 

and represented by counsel at all critical stages of the proceedings against 

him. The evidence presented supports the convictions, and the sentences

imposed fall within the range permitted by law. As far as the record 

reveals, these proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona 

Rules of Criminal Procedure and Shelton’s constitutional and statutory 

rights. Therefore, we affirm Shelton’s convictions and sentences.

¶9 Unless defense counsel finds an issue that may be 

appropriately submitted to the Arizona Supreme Court, his obligations are 

fulfilled once he informs Shelton of the outcome of this appeal and his

future options. State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584–85 (1984). Shelton has 

30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he wishes, with a pro 

per motion for reconsideration or petition for review.

1 The court awarded Shelton 1082 days of presentence incarceration 

credit but he was entitled to only 1080 days. The State did not cross-appeal 

the court’s calculation, and thus we have no authority to correct it. State v. 

Dawson, 164 Ariz. 278, 286 (1990) (“In the absence of a timely appeal or cross

appeal by the State seeking to correct an illegally lenient sentence, an 

appellate court has no subject matter jurisdiction to consider that issue.”).
STATE v. SHELTON

Decision of the Court

4

¶10 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.