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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

JACK BUCHANAN SCALPH, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 17-0525

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2016-005574-001 DT

The Honorable Erin Otis, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Elizabeth B. N. Garcia

Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Legal Defender’s Office, Phoenix

By Cynthia D. Beck

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 7-19-2018
STATE v. SCALPH

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge James B. Morse Jr. and Judge Kent E. Cattani joined.

W I N T H R O P, Judge:

Jack Buchanan Scalph appeals his convictions and sentences 

for possession of dangerous drugs for sale, possession of marijuana for sale, 

possession of drug paraphernalia, and four counts of misconduct involving 

weapons. Because only one issue from Scalph’s appeal merits publication, 

we have addressed that argument in a separate, published opinion issued 

simultaneously with this unpublished memorandum decision. See Ariz. R. 

Sup. Ct. 111(h); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.19(f). For the following reasons, and for 

reasons addressed in the accompanying published opinion, we affirm 

Scalph’s convictions and sentences.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY1

Police officers searched Scalph’s home pursuant to a warrant 

and discovered four guns. In a hidden compartment behind a shower, 

police found illicit drugs, a digital scale, and plastic baggies. The State 

charged Scalph with one count each of possession of dangerous drugs for 

sale (methamphetamine), a class 2 felony; possession of narcotic drugs for 

sale (heroin), a class 2 felony; possession of marijuana for sale, a class 4 

felony; possession of drug paraphernalia, a class 6 felony; and eight counts 

of misconduct involving weapons, class 4 felonies.

The State proceeded to trial on the drug charges and the four 

weapons charges that were based on allegations Scalph possessed the 

firearms during the commission of the drug offenses.2 See A.R.S. § 13-

 

1 We view the facts in the light most favorable to upholding the

verdicts and resolve all reasonable inferences against Scalph. See State v. 

Harm, 236 Ariz. 402, 404 n.2, ¶ 3 (App. 2015) (citing State v. Valencia, 186 

Ariz. 493, 495 (App. 1996)).

2 Four weapons charges that were based on Scalph’s status as a 

prohibited possessor were severed prior to trial. After the jury convicted 
STATE v. SCALPH

Decision of the Court

3

3102(A)(8) (West 2018).

3 The jury could not reach a verdict regarding the 

heroin offense, but found Scalph guilty of the other charges. The jury also 

found the State sufficiently proved aggravating factors, including that 

Scalph was on probation for a felony conviction at the time he committed 

the offenses. The court subsequently found Scalph had two historical prior 

felony convictions. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-703(C) and (J), the court 

sentenced Scalph to presumptive concurrent prison terms as a category 3 

repetitive offender, including a 15.75-year sentence on Count 1 (the 

methamphetamine offense), a 3.75-year sentence on Count 4 

(paraphernalia), and 10-year sentences on the remaining counts. With

respect to Count 1, the court ordered Scalph’s prison sentence to be served 

day-for-day, or “flat-time,” in accordance with A.R.S. § 13-3407(A)(2), (F). 

Scalph timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, 

Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, 

and -4033(A)(1).

ANALYSIS

Scalph argues the trial court erred in summarily denying his

request for new counsel without conducting a hearing or considering the 

factors in State v. LaGrand, 152 Ariz. 483 (1987). He specifically claims trial 

counsel failed to communicate with him “about discovery” and there was 

no “discussion about progress and preparation for trial.” We review a 

superior court’s decision to deny a request for new counsel for an abuse of 

discretion. State v. Cromwell, 211 Ariz. 181, 186, ¶ 27 (2005).

Although a criminal defendant has the right to be represented 

by competent counsel, an accused is not entitled to counsel of his choice or 

to a meaningful relationship with an attorney. Id. at ¶ 28. However, “when 

there is a complete breakdown in communication or an irreconcilable 

conflict between a defendant and his appointed counsel, that defendant’s 

Sixth Amendment right to counsel has been violated.” State v. Torres, 208 

Ariz. 340, 342, ¶ 6 (2004). “A single allegation of lost confidence in counsel 

does not require the appointment of new counsel, and disagreements over 

defense strategies do not constitute an irreconcilable conflict.” Cromwell, 

211 Ariz. at 186, ¶ 29.

 

Scalph, the State dismissed those other four weapons charges. See Ariz. 

Rev. Stat. (“A.R.S.”) section 13-3102(A)(4).

3 We cite the current versions of all applicable statutes as no revisions 

material to this decision have occurred.
STATE v. SCALPH

Decision of the Court

4

If a defendant alleges sufficient facts that raise a colorable 

claim of an irreconcilable conflict or of a complete breakdown in 

communication with counsel, the court must conduct a hearing. Torres, 208 

Ariz. at 343, ¶¶ 8-9. However, not every complaint requires a formal 

hearing or an evidentiary proceeding. Id. at ¶ 8. “For example, generalized 

complaints about differences in strategy may not require a formal hearing 

or an evidentiary proceeding.” Id. Thus, the scope of the court’s inquiry 

depends upon the nature of a defendant’s allegations. Id.

At the final trial management conference, eleven days before 

trial, Scalph unsuccessfully requested new counsel. Scalph explained his 

reasons for requesting new counsel as follows:

I’ve waited 14 months for [the suppression] hearing that we 

had last week and I was really disappointed in the way it was 

handled. I have personally not seen any discovery. I have no 

idea who’s been interviewed, if anybody has been 

interviewed. I have no idea what the prosecutors have. I just 

don’t feel like I’ve been represented. I was misled at the 

beginning by [previous defense counsel], [who] told me that 

it wasn’t a very good plea offer, told me that there was [sic] 

problems with the search, basically not to take it, and it’s gone 

down hill from there.

The trial court asked defense counsel whether he had any concerns about 

continuing to represent Scalph, and counsel responded:

No, your Honor. We’ve done almost all of the interviews in 

the case, we’re going to do the last three today and tomorrow, 

so we’ll be ready to go to trial on June 1. I was -- as the Court 

knows, I was several attorneys down on the case. This was a 

case that was initially filed under an old case number. After 

a number of settlement attempts, it was dismissed and refiled 

under this case number, and that’s when I came on to the case 

and there’s not ever been a plea offer in this case number. I 

was informed today that Mr. Scalph had not received any of 

his previous discovery. He had received, as he described it, 

as kind of a summary of information from his prior attorney 

at the Public Defender’s Office under the old case number, but 

he had not informed me that they did not have any discovery 

in this case. I will send him everything later today so he’ll 

have it to review, at least prior to trial, but otherwise, I’m 

ready to go.
STATE v. SCALPH

Decision of the Court

5

Scalph failed to sufficiently identify specific facts that would 

require the court to conduct an evidentiary hearing. Scalph had at least one 

attorney prior to trial counsel, and his allegation that a previous lawyer 

“misled” him was not a proper basis to substitute current trial counsel. And 

based on trial counsel’s statements to the court, he and Scalph did indeed 

communicate about discovery when Scalph informed counsel of the 

“summary of information” he received from his previous lawyer. Scalph’s 

failure, until the final trial management conference, to inform counsel that 

he received “no discovery” indicates a lack of communication on Scalph’s 

part, not a lack of communication by trial counsel.

Significantly, Scalph does not articulate how the purportedly 

undisclosed information prejudiced his defense at trial. Additionally, 

Scalph’s “disappointment” in counsel’s “handl[ing]” of the suppression 

hearing, and Scalph’s complaint of not knowing who his lawyer 

interviewed are not sufficient to require a formal hearing.

4 State v. Hidalgo, 

241 Ariz. 543, 557, ¶ 61 (2017) (noting disagreement between defendant and 

counsel over pretrial witness interviews is a difference in strategy), cert. 

denied, 138 S. Ct. 1054 (2018). Finally, Scalph’s assertion that he did not “feel 

like [he had] been represented” is belied by the record; counsel, on Scalph’s 

behalf, filed multiple motions and appeared at numerous pretrial 

proceedings.

On this record, the trial court’s decision to do no more than

question counsel in response to Scalph’s allegations was sufficient for Sixth 

Amendment purposes. Accordingly, the court did not abuse its discretion

by denying Scalph’s request for new counsel without holding a hearing. See 

Hidalgo, 241 Ariz. at 557, ¶ 61; State v. Paris-Sheldon, 214 Ariz. 500, 505, ¶ 11 

(App. 2007) (concluding trial court’s “informally” questioning defendant 

and counsel properly explored basis of defendant’s request for new 

counsel).

Finally, we summarily reject Scalph’s implication that the 

court was required to make LaGrand findings to support its denial of 

Scalph’s request for new counsel. Scalph cites no authority supporting such 

a proposition. See Paris-Sheldon, 214 Ariz. at 505, ¶ 11 (“Paris–Sheldon cites 

no authority, . . . and we find none, requiring a trial court to make explicit 

findings in support of its decision to deny a motion for substitute counsel.”).

 

4 Scalph raises no issues on appeal regarding the court’s denial of his 

motion to suppress.
STATE v. SCALPH

Decision of the Court

6

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, and for the reasons addressed in 

the accompanying published opinion, we affirm Scalph’s convictions and 

sentences.