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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

IMMANUEL C. WILLIAMS, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 18-0750

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2017-159877-001

The Honorable Julie Ann Mata, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix

By Thomas K. Baird

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 10-8-2019
STATE v. WILLIAMS

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

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

which Judge Maria Elena Cruz and Vice Chief Judge Kent E. Cattani joined.

J O N E S, Judge:

¶1 Immanuel Williams appeals his convictions and sentences for 

possession of dangerous drugs and possession of drug paraphernalia, 

arguing the prosecutor committed misconduct by arguing facts not in 

evidence to the jury during closing arguments. For the following reasons, 

we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 On December 28, 2017, a Phoenix Police Department (PPD) 

officer searched Williams following his arrest for an unrelated crime.

1 The 

officer placed all of Williams’ belongings inside a clear PPD property bag, 

then gave the property bag to a second officer, who handed it to a third

officer who was in charge of the investigation. The third officer found eight 

baggies of methamphetamine with Williams’ belongings.

¶3 A jury convicted Williams of one count each of possession of 

dangerous drugs and possession of drug paraphernalia. After determining 

Williams had two prior historical felony convictions, the trial court 

sentenced him as a non-dangerous, repetitive offender to concurrent,

presumptive terms of imprisonment, the longest being ten years. Williams 

timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Revised 

Statutes §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and -4033(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶4 Williams argues the prosecutor committed misconduct by 

referencing facts not in evidence during his closing — namely that the 

methamphetamine was found in Williams’ pockets. Because Williams 

failed to object during trial, we review for fundamental error. State v. 

Goudeau, 239 Ariz. 421, 466, ¶ 196 (2016). “To prevail under this standard 

 

1 “We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the 

verdict[s].” State v. Payne, 233 Ariz. 484, 496, ¶ 1, n.1 (2013) (quoting State 

v. Dann, 205 Ariz. 557, 562, ¶ 2 (2003)).
STATE v. WILLIAMS

Decision of the Court

3

of review, a defendant must establish both that fundamental error exists 

and that the error in his case caused him prejudice.” State v. Henderson, 210 

Ariz. 561, 567, ¶ 20 (2005) (citations omitted).

¶5 Prosecutors are given “wide latitude” in presenting closing 

argument to the jury and “may summarize the evidence, make submittals 

to the jury, urge the jury to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence, 

and suggest ultimate conclusions.” Goudeau, 239 Ariz. at 466, ¶ 196 

(quoting State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 602 (1993)). In determining whether 

an argument constitutes misconduct, we first consider “whether the 

prosecutor’s statements called to the jury’s attention matters it should not 

have considered in reaching its decision.” Id. (quoting State v. Nelson, 229 

Ariz. 180, 189, ¶ 39 (2012)).

¶6 Williams fails to prove misconduct occurred. The first officer

testified he believed he had removed all of the belongings retrieved from 

the search incident to Williams’ arrest from Williams’ front pants pockets. 

Although the PPD property bag was handed off from one officer to another,

there was no evidence that anyone tampered with or added additional 

items to the bag before its contents, including eight baggies of 

methamphetamine, were inventoried. The evidence supports an inference 

that Williams had methamphetamine in his pockets, and we find no error, 

let alone fundamental error.

CONCLUSION

¶7 Williams’ convictions and sentences are affirmed.