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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

No. 1 CA-CR 17-0795 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR 2015-117385-001

The Honorable Lauren R. Guyton, Judge Pro Tempore

The Honorable Mark Brain, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

Law Offices of Stephen L. Duncan, PLC, Scottsdale

By Stephen L. Duncan

Counsel for Appellant

Johnny Lee Jackson, Jr., Eloy

Appellant

FILED 12-4-2018
STATE v. JACKSON

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Jennifer B. Campbell delivered the decision of the Court, 

in which Judge Paul J. McMurdie and Judge Kent E. Cattani joined.

C A M P B E L L, Judge:

¶1 Johnny Lee Jackson Jr. timely appeals from his convictions

and sentences for possession of dangerous drugs for sale—cannabimimetic 

XLR-11 (“spice”)—and possession of drug paraphernalia. After searching 

the record on appeal and finding no arguable question of law that was not 

frivolous, Jackson’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 reversible error. This court granted 

counsel’s motion to allow Jackson to file a pro per supplemental brief, and 

Jackson did so. We reject the arguments raised in Jackson’s supplemental 

brief and, after reviewing the entire record, find no reversible error.

Therefore, we affirm Jackson’s convictions and sentences.

BACKGROUND1

¶2 While driving in a high crime area, a Phoenix police officer

observed Jackson—who had a known reputation as a drug dealer—

handing an object to another man. The man placed the object in a straw hat

and tucked the hat under his arm. Based on the men’s behavior and the 

officer’s training, he believed he had witnessed a hand-to-hand drug 

transaction. The officer and his partner approached the two men and asked

the man with the hat what Jackson had given him. The man did not answer 

but held the hat closer to his body.

¶3 Concerned for their own safety and acting to preserve

evidence of a crime, the officers searched the hat. Inside they found a 

drawstring bag containing what appeared to be spice, along with 20 spice 

cigarettes. Testing later confirmed that the cigarettes contained 

cannabimimetic substances common in spice, including XLR-11. See Ariz. 

Rev. Stat. § 13-3401(6)(b)(vii). Police arrested and searched Jackson, finding

 

1We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury’s 

verdict and resolve all reasonable inferences against Jackson. State v. Guerra, 

161 Ariz. 289, 293 (1989). 
STATE v. JACKSON

Decision of the Court

3

a small vial of liquor, money, and his car keys. Police then searched his car 

and found 242 cigar wraps, commonly used to wrap spice, and a notebook 

containing a handwritten pay-and-owe ledger. 

¶4 After trial, the jury found Jackson guilty of possession of 

dangerous drugs for sale and possession of drug paraphernalia. Jackson 

had admitted to a prior felony conviction at trial; accordingly, he received 

the presumptive sentences for a person with a historical prior, 9.25 and 1.75 

years respectively, to be served concurrently. The court awarded 47 days of 

presentence incarceration credit.2

DISCUSSION

¶5 In his supplemental brief, Jackson asserts that the court erred 

in denying his motion to suppress the cigar wraps found in his car. He

argues the police conducted an illegal search. The superior court addressed 

Jackson’s motion at an evidentiary hearing. An officer testified that upon 

arrest, Jackson asked the officer to give his belongings to a friend who stood 

near his car. The officer testified that when he passed Jackson’s vehicle, he 

saw cigar wraps in plain view in the backseat. The wraps were consistent 

with the wraps surrounding the spice cigarettes found earlier. At that point, 

the officer testified that he opened the door of the vehicle when Jackson 

called out, consenting to the search and asking police not to impound his 

car. After searching the car, he found additional cigar wraps and the ledger. 

The court found the officer’s testimony credible and denied Jackson’s 

motion, reasoning that the police’s discovery of the cigar wraps fell within 

the plain view exception of the Fourth Amendment because the officer was 

lawfully present and believed that the cigar wraps were connected to the 

drug transaction he witnessed earlier. 

¶6 In reviewing a motion to suppress, we review the trial court’s 

factual findings for an abuse of discretion, considering only the evidence 

presented at the suppression hearing. State v. Mendoza-Ruiz, 225 Ariz. 473, 

474, ¶ 2 n.1 (App. 2010); State v. Valle, 196 Ariz. 324, 326, ¶ 6 (App. 2000). 

We view those facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the superior 

court’s ruling and will defer to the court’s determination of witnesses’ 

 

2Jackson should have received only 46 days of presentence 

incarceration credit. The superior court’s error is in Jackson’s favor and is, 

therefore, not fundamental because it did not prejudice him. See State v. 

Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 567, ¶¶ 19-20 (2005) (explaining fundamental error 

is error that goes to the foundation of the case and prejudices the 

defendant). 
STATE v. JACKSON

Decision of the Court

4

credibility. Mendoza-Ruiz, 225 Ariz. at 474, ¶ 6. We then review de novo the 

court’s legal conclusion of whether the search complied with the Fourth 

Amendment. Valle, 196 Ariz. at 326, ¶ 6. In conducting our review, we will

uphold the court's ruling if it is legally correct for any reason. State v. Huez, 

240 Ariz. 406, 412, ¶ 19 (App. 2016).

¶7 Evidence collected in violation of the constitutional

protections against unreasonable search and seizure is usually inadmissible 

in a criminal trial. State v. Valenzuela, 239 Ariz. 299, 302, ¶ 10 (2016); see U.S. 

Const. amend. IV; Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 8. Unless an exception applies, police 

must obtain a warrant before conducting a search. State v. Peoples, 240 Ariz. 

244, 247, ¶ 9 (2016). One such exception is the plain view doctrine, which 

allows a police officer, who is lawfully present, to seize contraband within 

plain view when the object’s evidentiary value is immediately apparent. 

State v. DeCamp, 197 Ariz. 36, 39-40, ¶ 14 (App. 1999).

¶8 Jackson argues that the officer’s testimony at the suppression 

hearing conflicted with a police report narrative suggesting the cigar wraps 

were not in plain view, rendering the search illegal. We defer to the superior 

court’s credibility determinations and here, the court found the police 

officer’s testimony credible. The officer was lawfully present when he saw 

the cigar wraps from outside Jackson’s car. The wraps, commonly used for 

spice cigarettes, were directly related to the drug-dealing charge for which 

Jackson had just been arrested, giving them evidentiary value. 

Additionally, police testified that Jackson consented to the search of his 

vehicle. Accordingly, the contraband seizure fell within the plain view 

exception of the Fourth Amendment.

¶9 We have reviewed the entire record for reversible error and 

find none. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300. Jackson received a fair trial. He was 

represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings and was present at 

all critical stages.

¶10 The evidence presented at trial was substantial and supports 

the verdicts. The jury was properly comprised of 12 members and the court 

properly instructed the jury on the elements of the charges, Jackson’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, Jackson was given an opportunity to speak at 

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

for his offenses.
STATE v. JACKSON

Decision of the Court

5

CONCLUSION

¶11 We affirm Jackson’s convictions and sentences. Unless 

defense counsel finds an issue that may be appropriately submitted to the 

Arizona Supreme Court, his obligations are fulfilled once he informs 

Jackson of the outcome of this appeal and his future options. See State v. 

Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85 (1984). Jackson 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.