Court Opinion

ID: 9926021
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-23 18:02:59.753648+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:02.971780
License: Public Domain

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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

                RODNEY MATHEW JACKSON, Appellant.

                             No. 1 CA-CR 22-0590
                               FILED 1-23-2024

           Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County
                        No. P1300CR202000634
                The Honorable Debra R. Phelan, Judge

                                  AFFIRMED

                                   COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Alice Jones
Counsel for Appellee

Law Offices of Stephen L. Duncan PLC, Scottsdale
By Stephen L. Duncan
Counsel for Appellant
                            STATE v. JACKSON
                            Decision of the Court

                      MEMORANDUM DECISION

Vice Chief Judge Randall M. Howe delivered the decision of the court, in
which Judge Jennifer M. Perkins and Judge Daniel J. Kiley joined.

H O W E, Judge:

¶1            This appeal is filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967) and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969). Counsel for Rodney
Mathew Jackson has advised this court that he has found no arguable
questions of law and asks us to search the record for fundamental error.
Jackson was convicted of two counts of sale or transportation of dangerous
drugs, class 2 felonies, and one count of possession of
methamphetamine-related drug paraphernalia, a class 6 felony. He was
given an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona; he has
not done so. After reviewing the record, we affirm Jackson’s convictions
and sentences.

                 FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2           “Our obligation is to review the entire record for reversible
error, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the
convictions and resolving all reasonable inferences against” the
appellant. State v. Melendez, 256 Ariz. 14 ¶ 2 (App. 2023) (cleaned up).
Partners Against Narcotics Trafficking (“PANT”) is a task force that often
uses confidential informants to investigate drug transactions. In early 2020,
Thomas Williamson faced drug charges, and contracted as an informant
with PANT in exchange for a more lenient sentence. Williamson could
complete his contract by helping build five cases against others for selling
drugs. This appeal originates from one of those cases.

¶3            In January 2020, Defendant Jackson resided at his elderly
mother’s house in Chino Valley. Knowing that Jackson could sell him
methamphetamine, Williamson met with PANT detectives to conduct a
controlled buy. The detectives met with Williamson, gave him $350, and
searched his person and vehicle to ensure he had no other money or drugs
on him. Williamson then drove to Jackson’s house, surveilled by the
detectives, and entered the residence. Jackson took the money and told
Williamson to come back the next day for the drugs. When Williamson
returned the next day, again under surveillance, Jackson furnished him

                                      2
                            STATE v. JACKSON
                            Decision of the Court

with two small bags containing approximately 27 grams of
methamphetamine. One week later, PANT directed Williamson to conduct
a second buy. After again being searched and provided cash, Williamson
went to Jackson’s residence, handed over the money, and returned later that
night for the methamphetamine—which had been stashed in a boat on
Jackson’s property. This buy again yielded approximately 27 grams of the
drug.

¶4            In cases using informants, PANT often delays their arrests to
protect those informants’ identities. They did so here, not contacting
Jackson until May 2020, when one of the detectives spotted Jackson while
out on patrol. The detective arrested Jackson on the pending drug charges.

¶5            At trial, Jackson was found guilty of two counts of sale or
transportation of dangerous drugs and one count of possession of
methamphetamine-related drug paraphernalia. The State declined to
pursue aggravated charges. Jackson was sentenced to slightly mitigated
concurrent terms of 7.5 years’ imprisonment for each sale or transportation
count and 0.5 years’ imprisonment for the paraphernalia count, also
concurrent, and granted 40 days’ presentence incarceration credit. Jackson
timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction under Ariz. Const. art. II, § 24
and A.R.S. § 13–4033(A).

                               DISCUSSION

¶6            We review Jackson’s convictions and sentences for
fundamental error. See State v. Flores, 227 Ariz. 509, 512 ¶ 12 (App. 2011)
(citation omitted). Counsel for Jackson has advised this court that after a
diligent search of the entire record, he has found no arguable question of
law.

¶7            We have read and considered counsel’s brief and fully
reviewed the record for reversible error, see Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, and find
none. All the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona
Rules of Criminal Procedure. So far as the record reveals, Jackson was
represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, and the sentences
imposed were within the statutory guidelines. We decline to order briefing
and affirm Jackson’s convictions and sentences.

¶8            Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel shall inform
Jackson of the status of the appeal and of his future options. Counsel has no
further obligations unless, upon review, counsel finds an issue appropriate
for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for
review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584–85 (1984). Jackson shall have

                                      3
                           STATE v. JACKSON
                           Decision of the Court

30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro
per motion for reconsideration or petition for review.

                              CONCLUSION

¶9           For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.

                         AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
                         FILED: AA

                                        4