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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

COLT PRESTON JACKSON, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 17-0722

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2016-103040-002

The Honorable William R. Wingard, Commissioner

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

By Matthew O. Brown

Counsel for Appellant

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Jon W. Thompson delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Kenton D. Jones and Judge Michael J. Brown joined.

FILED 10-25-2018
STATE v. JACKSON

Decision of the Court

2

T H O M P S O N, Judge:

¶1 This case comes to us as an appeal under Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969). Counsel for Colt 

Preston Jackson (defendant) has advised us that, after searching the entire 

record, he has been unable to discover any arguable questions of law and 

has filed briefs requesting this court to conduct an Anders review of the 

records. Defendant has been afforded an opportunity to file a supplemental 

brief in propria persona, and he has done so.

¶2 Avondale Police Department received a 9-1-1 call from victim,

who was in her house during a burglary. Victim was not expecting anyone 

that day, but she observed a woman repeatedly ringing the doorbell, while 

a man pretended to work on his car on the street in front of her house. 

Victim went over to a side window and saw “a large shadow” by the side 

of the house, at which point she initiated a 9-1-1 call and locked herself in 

the master bathroom. While on the call, victim heard a large bang and two 

distinct voices downstairs. Victim later discovered her back doggy door 

had been broken, her back sliding door had been unlocked, and multiple

kitchen drawers were left open. 

¶3 A nearby police officer was at the scene within a minute of the 

call. The officer observed a car leaving the area and conducted a stop of 

defendant’s car. After failing to stop for multiple blocks, defendant 

provided a false name to the officer. Before the officer mentioned there was 

a burglary nearby, defendant spontaneously apologized for possibly going 

into the wrong house. Defendant later explained he was looking for his 

aunt’s house, where he was going to pick up transmission fluid and fix his 

car. At trial, defendant did not know his aunt’s full married name or 

address. 

¶4 Victim was brought to the scene of the traffic stop, where she 

identified defendant as the man pretending to work on his car and

identified the passenger as the woman who rang the doorbell. The victim’s 

keys, purse, credit cards, iPod, and watches were all found in defendant’s 

car. Police also found a screwdriver, gloves, and wire cutters in the car.

¶5 The state charged defendant with Burglary in the Second 

Degree, a class 3 felony, and Possession of Burglary Tools, a class 6 felony. 

A jury found defendant guilty on both counts. As aggravating factors, the 

court found defendant was on felony probation and had prior felony 

convictions and as a mitigating factor the trial court considered defendant’s 

family support. Defendant was given presumptive sentences of 11.25 years 
STATE v. JACKSON

Decision of the Court

3

on the burglary charge and 3.75 years on the possession of burglary tools

charge, to be served concurrently, with 677 days of presentence 

incarceration credit. 

¶6 In his supplemental brief, defendant appears to assert the 

trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of 

counsel. See U.S. Const. amend VI. Specifically, defendant argues that his 

lawyer denied his wish to call the co-defendant as a witness, and that his 

lawyer did not adequately consult defendant about trial strategy. This 

court will not consider claims of ineffective assistance of counsel arguments 

raised on direct appeal. State v. Spreitz, 202 Ariz. 1, 3, ¶ 9 (2002). Such claims 

must be first presented to the trial court in a petition for post-conviction 

relief. Id. Defendant also alleges that the evidence was insufficient to 

sustain his conviction. “Reversible error based on insufficiency of the 

evidence occurs only where there is a complete absence of probative facts 

to support the conviction.” State v. Williams, 209 Ariz. 228, 231, ¶ 6 (App. 

2004). There is sufficient evidence to support this conviction.

¶7 We have read and considered counsel’s brief and defendant’s 

brief and have searched the entire record for reversible error. See Leon, 104 

Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. We find none. All of the proceedings were 

conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. So 

far as the record reveals, defendant was adequately represented by counsel 

at all stages of the proceedings, and the sentence imposed was within the 

statutory limits. Pursuant to State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 

154, 156-57 (1984), defendant’s counsel’s obligations in this appeal are at an 

end. Defendant has thirty days from the date of this decision in which to

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

reconsideration or petition for review.

¶8 We affirm the convictions and sentences.