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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

JOHNATHAN JAMES HULSEY, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 14-0768

Appeal from the Superior Court in Navajo County

No. S0900CR201300839

The Honorable Robert J. Higgins, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

Emery K. La Barge Attorney at Law, Snowflake

By Emery K. La Barge

Counsel for Appellant

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Kenton D. Jones delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Margaret H. Downie and Judge Jon W. Thompson joined.
STATE v. HULSEY

Decision of the Court

2

J O N E S, Judge:

¶1 Johnathan Hulsey appeals his conviction and sentence for one 

count of unlawful flight from a law enforcement vehicle. After searching 

the entire record, Hulsey’s defense counsel has identified no arguable 

question of law that is not frivolous. Therefore, in accordance with Anders 

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

defense counsel asks this Court to search the record for fundamental error. 

Hulsey was afforded the opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria

persona, which he elected not to do. After reviewing the record, we find no 

error. Accordingly, Hulsey’s conviction and sentence are affirmed. 

FACTS1 AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Hulsey was indicted on one count of unlawful flight from a 

pursuing law enforcement vehicle based on an event that occurred on 

November 13, 2013. Under Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) section 28-

622.01,

2 “[a] driver of a motor vehicle who willfully flees or attempts to 

elude a pursuing official law enforcement vehicle that is being operated in 

the manner described in [A.R.S.] § 28-624, subsection C is guilty of a class 5 

felony.”3 This section applies only where the vehicle is “appropriately 

marked to show that it is an official law enforcement vehicle.” A.R.S. § 28-

622.01.

¶3 At trial, the State presented the following evidence: On 

November 13, 2013, a law enforcement officer was driving a fully marked 

 

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

verdict, with all reasonable inferences resolved against the defendant. State 

v. Harm, 236 Ariz. 402, 404 n.2, ¶ 2 (App. 2015).

2 Absent material revisions from the relevant date, we cite a statute’s 

current version.

3 A.R.S. § 28-624(C) defines a pursuing law enforcement vehicle as one 

in which “the driver of the vehicle while in motion sounds an audible signal 

by bell, siren or exhaust whistle as reasonably necessary and if the vehicle 

is equipped with at least one lighted lamp displaying a red or red and blue 

light or lens visible under normal atmospheric conditions from a distance 

of five hundred feet to the front of the vehicle, except that an authorized 

emergency vehicle operated as a police vehicle need not be equipped with 

or display a red or red and blue light or lens visible from in front of the 

vehicle.” 
STATE v. HULSEY

Decision of the Court

3

Arizona Department of Public Safety patrol vehicle in Joseph City, Arizona

“complete with blue strip[es] and stars down the side, insignia, light bar on 

[the] top, multiple antennas, search light on the side, [and] black rims,”

when he observed an individual riding a black motorcycle turn at a stop 

sign without coming to a complete stop. The driver looked directly at the 

officer while completing the turn, and the officer immediately recognized 

Hulsey by sight; the two had gone to high school and played football 

together, the officer knew Hulsey’s family, and the officer had seen Hulsey

around town in the past. The officer noticed Hulsey was wearing dark 

glasses and a black baseball cap with metal studs sticking out of it, turned 

backward on his head. He also noticed there was no license plate attached

to the back of the motorcycle. 

¶4 Based upon these observations, the officer turned to follow 

Hulsey and activated the lights on his patrol vehicle with the intention to 

initiate a traffic stop. Hulsey looked over his shoulder at the officer and 

accelerated away from him in a huge puff of black smoke. 

¶5 The officer immediately activated his siren and followed 

Hulsey through a residential area with a posted speed limit of twenty-five 

miles per hour. Hulsey “zig-zagged” through town at approximately fiftyfive to sixty-five miles per hour, failed to stop for at least two other stop 

signs, and almost ran into a telephone pole. When Hulsey approached a 

school zone, the officer deactivated his lights and sirens to “hopefully 

discourag[e] this hazardous and dangerous driving behavior” where 

children were present. Hulsey did not adjust his behavior, however, and 

taking advantage of the growing distance from the officer, turned off the 

roadway into an area where the officer was unable to travel. 

¶6 Hulsey was arrested three hours later outside of his home, 

still wearing dark glasses and a black baseball cap with metal studs sticking 

out of it, turned backward on his head. 

¶7 Before the case was submitted to the jury, Hulsey’s counsel 

unsuccessfully moved for judgment of acquittal under Arizona Rule of 

Criminal Procedure 20 arguing the State failed to present any any physical 

evidence identifying Hulsey as the operator of the black motorcycle. The 

jury found Hulsey guilty as charged. The State proved one prior felony 

conviction, and Hulsey was sentenced to a presumptive term of 2.25 years’ 

imprisonment. 
STATE v. HULSEY

Decision of the Court

4

DISCUSSION

¶8 After reviewing the entire record for reversible error, we find 

none. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300 (“An exhaustive search of the record has 

failed to produce any prejudicial error.”). Reasonable evidence was 

presented to support the jury’s verdict that Hulsey was driving the black 

motorcycle on November 13, 2013 and knowingly fled from a pursuing law 

enforcement vehicle. 

¶9 All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the 

Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. So far as the record reveals, Hulsey

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

at all critical stages. The jury was properly comprised of eight jurors, and 

the record shows no evidence of jury misconduct. See A.R.S. § 21-102(B); 

Ariz. R. Crim. P. 18.1(a). At sentencing, Hulsey was given an opportunity 

to speak, and the trial court stated on the record the evidence and materials 

it considered and the factors it found in imposing sentence. The court 

found the State’s witness credible and properly determined it had proved 

Hulsey’s prior felony conviction by clear and convincing evidence. 

Additionally, the sentence imposed was within the statutory limits.

CONCLUSION

¶10 Hulsey’s conviction and sentence are affirmed. After the 

filing of this decision, defense counsel’s obligations pertaining to Hulsey’s 

representation in this appeal have ended. Defense counsel need do no more 

than inform Hulsey of the outcome of this appeal and his future options, 

unless, upon review, counsel finds an issue appropriate for submission to 

our supreme court by petition for review. State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 

584-85 (1984).

¶11 Hulsey has thirty days from the date of this decision to 

proceed, if he wishes, with an in propria persona petition for review. See Ariz. 

R. Crim. P. 31.19(a). Upon the Court’s own motion, we also grant Hulsey

thirty days from the date of this decision to file an in propria persona motion 

for reconsideration.