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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL 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

JOHNNY ROBERT LOPEZ, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 15-0348 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County 

No. CR 2014-135592-001 

The Honorable Bruce R. Cohen, Judge 

AFFIRMED 

COUNSEL 

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix 

By Joseph T. Maziarz 

Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix 

By Spencer D. Heffel 

Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. LOPEZ 

Decision of the Court 

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Judge Margaret H. Downie delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Andrew W. Gould and Judge John C. Gemmill joined.

D O W N I E, Judge: 

¶1 Johnny Robert Lopez appeals his convictions and sentences 

for two counts of misconduct involving weapons and one count of theft. 

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 

Ariz. 297 (1969), counsel has searched the record, found no arguable 

question of law, and asked us to review the record for reversible error. See 

State v. Richardson, 175 Ariz. 336, 339 (App. 1993). Lopez was given the 

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

do so. For the following reasons, we affirm his convictions and sentences. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

¶2 Private security guards encountered Lopez while on patrol 

at a Phoenix apartment complex. As soon as Lopez saw the guards, he 

turned and began walking in the other direction. Not recognizing Lopez 

as a resident, the guards asked to speak with him. Before responding, 

Lopez reached inside the open door of an acquaintance-resident’s

apartment and set down his backpack, saying, “hold this for a second, I’ll 

be back.” When Lopez approached the guards, he looked “very nervous, 

very agitated.” When asked whether he lived there, Lopez said he would 

not tell the guards anything and “took off running.” 

¶3 The acquaintance-resident voluntarily turned the backpack 

over to the security guards, who called the police after discovering it 

contained a loaded firearm with a scratched-off serial number. The 

backpack also contained Lopez’s Arizona identification card, tax 

documents, and two cell phones. Police linked the firearm to a crime that 

had occurred the day before, during which the firearm had been stolen 

from the victim. 

¶4 The State charged Lopez with three offenses. Count 1 

alleged misconduct involving weapons for knowingly possessing a deadly 

weapon while being a prohibited possessor — a class 4 felony in violation 

of Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 13-3102(A)(4). Count 2 
STATE v. LOPEZ 

Decision of the Court 

3

alleged misconduct involving weapons for knowingly possessing a 

defaced deadly weapon and knowing it was defaced — a class 6 felony in 

violation of A.R.S. § 13-3102(A)(7). Count 3 alleged theft by knowingly 

controlling the property of another without lawful authority and 

knowing, or having reason to know, the property was stolen — a class 6 

felony in violation of A.R.S. § 13-1802(A)(5). 

¶5 A jury returned guilty verdicts on all three counts. The 

superior court sentenced Lopez to imprisonment for eight years on count 

1, and two-and-one-quarter years each on counts 2 and 3 — all to run 

concurrently.1 Lopez timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 

Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and A.R.S. §§ 

12–120.21(A)(1), 13–4031, –4033(A)(1). 

DISCUSSION 

¶6 We have read and considered defense counsel’s brief and 

have reviewed the entire record. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300. We find no 

reversible error. All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance 

with the Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the sentences imposed were 

within the statutory ranges. See A.R.S. § 13-703(C), (D), (G), (J) (2013) 

(sentencing for repetitive offenders). Lopez was present at all critical 

phases of the proceedings and was represented by counsel. The jury was 

properly impaneled and instructed. As described supra, the State 

presented substantial evidence of guilt. See State v. Burns, 237 Ariz. 1, 

20–21, ¶ 72 (2015) (“Substantial evidence to support a conviction exists 

when reasonable persons could accept it as adequate and sufficient to 

support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”). 

The record reflects no irregularity in the deliberation process. 

CONCLUSION 

¶7 We affirm Lopez’s convictions and sentences. His counsel’s 

obligations of representation in this appeal have ended. Counsel need do 

nothing more than inform Lopez 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. See State 

v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584–85 (1984). On this Court’s own motion, and 

 

1 Lopez admitted two prior felony convictions, making him a 

category three repetitive offender for purposes of sentencing. See A.R.S. 

§ 13-703(C) (2013). 
STATE v. LOPEZ 

Decision of the Court 

4

if he so desires, Lopez may proceed with an in propria persona motion for 

reconsideration or petition for review within 30 days of this decision.