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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

ARTERIA DAWSON, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 17-0803

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2016-002153-001

The Honorable Michael D. Gordon, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

Law Offices of Stephen L. Duncan P.L.C., Scottsdale

By Stephen L. Duncan

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 4-11-2019
STATE v. DAWSON

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

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

Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen and Judge Randall M. Howe joined.

C R U Z, Judge:

¶1 Arteria Dawson (“Dawson”) timely appeals from his

convictions and sentences for fraudulent schemes and artifices, a class two 

felony, count 1; forgery, a class four felony, counts 2-10, and 15; theft, a class 

one misdemeanor, count 12; and possession or use of dangerous drugs, a 

class four felony, count 27. After searching the record on appeal and 

finding no arguable question of law that was not frivolous, Dawson’s 

counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), asking this court to search the 

record for fundamental error. This court granted counsel’s motion to allow 

Dawson to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, but Dawson did not 

do so. After reviewing the entire record, we find no fundamental error and, 

therefore, affirm Dawson’s convictions and sentences.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

jury’s verdicts and resolve all reasonable inferences against Dawson. See 

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

¶3 Dawson presented a fifty-dollar counterfeit bill at a bar as 

payment for his six-dollar drink. The bartender questioned the authenticity 

of the fifty-dollar bill and the police were called; Dawson was arrested.

¶4 Dawson’s first trial resulted in mistrial due to a hung jury. 

During retrial, the State called a bartender as a witness. The bartender

testified that once he determined the fifty-dollar bill was counterfeit, he 

followed bar’s policy of providing change and alerting the manager. The 

bar’s general manager gave corroborating testimony.

¶5 A police officer testified she was the first to arrive at the bar. 

The officer testified Dawson originally had no explanation for where he 

obtained the counterfeit bill and that while Dawson was escorted to the 

patrol vehicle additional counterfeit bills fell out of Dawson’s pants. After 

more counterfeit bills were located on Dawson’s person, he stated he had 
STATE v. DAWSON

Decision of the Court

3

sold a cell phone to a woman inside the bar for $500 and that she paid him 

with the counterfeit bills. A review of video footage did not substantiate 

Dawson’s version of events.

¶6 A detective testified as an expert on fraudulent currency. The 

detective determined the bills were fraudulent based on: matching serial 

numbers, lack of press marks, lack of a rough texture, lack of microprinting,

use of the wrong material, and lack of a watermark.

¶7 At the close of the State’s case-in-chief, the defense moved for

a judgment of acquittal under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure (“Rule”) 

20 and the court denied the motion. Dawson was permitted to present 

closing arguments on his own behalf.

¶8 Before deliberations, the jury was instructed on the law. The 

court explained the presumption of innocence, the weight to give 

testimony, the elements of the charge, the requirement of a unanimous 

verdict, and the State’s burden of proof.

¶9 The jury returned a guilty verdict on all counts. Thereafter, 

the same jury was instructed on the State’s allegation of aggravating factors. 

The jury returned unanimous verdicts determining these aggravating 

factors were proven: financial harm to the bar (counts 1-2); and the offense 

was committed for pecuniary gain (counts 1-10). Additionally, Dawson 

admitted to two previous felony convictions.

¶10 The superior court conducted a sentencing hearing in 

compliance with Dawson’s constitutional rights and Rule 26. The superior 

court considered the presentence report and Dawson’s allocution at the 

sentencing hearing. The superior court found Dawson’s drug addiction, 

Dawson’s mother’s failing health, and his age were mitigating factors 

which outweighed the aggravating factors found by the jury.

¶11 The court sentenced Dawson as follows: count 1, the 

presumptive term of 15.75 years’ imprisonment; counts 2-10, 15, and 27, a

term of ten years’ imprisonment as to each; and count 11, six months’

imprisonment. All sentences were ordered to be served concurrently. 

Dawson received 886 days of presentence incarceration credit towards 

counts 1-11 and 798 days of presentence incarceration credit towards counts 

15 and 27.

DISCUSSION

¶12 We have read and considered counsel’s brief and fully 

reviewed the record for reversible error, see Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, and find 
STATE v. DAWSON

Decision of the Court

4

none. All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the 

Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. The record shows defense trial

counsel represented Dawson at all stages of the proceeding; except for 

closing arguments where Dawson was granted his request to proceed pro 

per with defense trial counsel acting in an advisory capacity.

¶13 The evidence presented at trial was substantial and supports 

the verdicts. The jury was properly comprised of twelve members and the 

court properly instructed the jury on the elements of the charges, Dawson’s 

presumption of innocence, the State’s burden of proof, and the necessity of 

a unanimous verdict. The superior court received and considered a 

presentence report, Dawson was given an opportunity to speak at 

sentencing, and his sentences were within the range of acceptable sentences 

for his offenses.

¶14 We decline to order briefing and affirm Dawson’s convictions 

and sentences.

¶15 After the filing of this decision, defense counsel’s obligations 

pertaining to Dawson’s representation in this appeal have ended. Defense 

counsel need do no more than inform Dawson of the outcome of this appeal 

and his future options, unless, upon review, counsel finds an issue 

appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for 

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

¶16 Dawson has thirty days from the date of this decision to 

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

motion for reconsideration.

CONCLUSION

¶17 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.