Court Opinion

ID: 9370647
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-14 15:01:55.946984+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:22.837784
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

                        JASON JOHNSON, Appellant.

                             No. 1 CA-CR 22-0190
                               FILED 2-14-2023

            Appeal from the Superior Court in Navajo County
                        No. S0900CR202000157
                 The Honorable Dale P. Nielson, Judge

                                  AFFIRMED

                                   COUNSEL

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

Weagant Law Offices, PLC, Florence
By Megan Weagant
Counsel for Appellant
                           STATE v. JOHNSON
                           Decision of the Court

                      MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Judge Angela K. Paton and Judge Peter B. Swann1 joined.

C R U Z, Judge:

¶1            This appeal was filed in accordance with Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967) and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969). Counsel for Jason
Johnson has advised this Court that counsel found no arguable questions
of law and asks us to search the record for fundamental error. Johnson was
convicted of first degree felony murder, a class 1 felony. Johnson was given
an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona; he has not
done so. After reviewing the record, we affirm Johnson’s conviction and
sentence.

               FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2             We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the
conviction and resolve all reasonable inferences against Johnson. See State
v. Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230, ¶ 2 (App. 1998).

¶3           On July 4, 2019, Johnson and Shawn Eckard traveled from
Phoenix to a remote area in Navajo County to sell one pound of
methamphetamine to C.C. To determine their meeting point, the three men
communicated via text. C.C. was missing for over one month from the time
of that meeting until police found his remains near their agreed meeting

1      Judge Peter B. Swann was a sitting member of this court when the
matter was assigned to this panel of the court. He retired effective
November 28, 2022. In accordance with the authority granted by Article 6,
Section 3, of the Arizona Constitution and pursuant to Arizona Revised
Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 12-145, the Chief Justice of the Arizona Supreme
Court has designated Judge Swann as a judge pro tempore in the Court of
Appeals for the purpose of participating in the resolution of cases assigned
to this panel during his term in office and the period during which his
vacancy remains open and for the duration of Administrative Order 2022-
162.

                                      2
                           STATE v. JOHNSON
                           Decision of the Court

point. A medical examiner determined C.C. died from a gunshot wound to
the back of the head.

¶4            After meeting C.C. on July 4, Johnson and Eckard went to a
casino in Payson, Arizona. Johnson then traveled to Gallup, New Mexico,
where he spent two nights in hotels. While there, Johnson gave his ex-wife,
K.C., several hundred dollars, and K.C. saw Johnson retrieve several bags
from a dark-colored truck resembling C.C.’s. Also, while in the hotel, C.C.’s
fiancée called K.C., and when she asked if K.C. had seen Johnson, Johnson
instructed K.C. to deny seeing him.

¶5            Police recovered C.C.’s truck in mid-July in Acoma, New
Mexico. Cell phone evidence led law enforcement to the remote location of
C.C.’s body, placed Johnson at the same scene on July 4, and placed Johnson
on July 5 at a casino within one mile of where police located C.C.’s truck.
Likewise, cell phone evidence revealed that on July 4 the three men’s cell
phones converged in the same area. On execution of a search warrant in
Johnson’s hotel room, law enforcement found a backpack with Johnson’s
identification and a firearm with ammunition matching the bullet that
killed C.C.

¶6            In February 2020, a grand jury indicted Johnson on one count
of first degree felony murder, a class 1 felony. After a trial, the jury
convicted Johnson, and the superior court conducted the sentencing
hearing in compliance with Johnson’s constitutional rights and Arizona
Rule of Criminal Procedure 26. The court found Johnson’s substance abuse
and family support to be mitigating factors and the emotional harm to
C.C.’s family, use of a deadly weapon, taking of C.C.’s property, presence
of an accomplice, and prior felony convictions in the past ten years to be
aggravating factors. The court sentenced Johnson to a term of natural life
with a presentence incarceration credit of 386 days and imposed the
applicable fines and fees.

¶7            Johnson timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction pursuant
to Arizona Constitution Article 6, Section 9, and A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1),
13-4031, and -4033(A)(1).

                              DISCUSSION

¶8            We review the entire record for reversible error. See State v.
Thompson, 229 Ariz. 43, 45, ¶ 3 (App. 2012). Counsel for Johnson has
advised this Court that after a diligent search of the entire record, counsel
has found no arguable question of law. We have read and considered
counsel’s brief and fully reviewed the record for reversible error, see Leon,

                                     3
                            STATE v. JOHNSON
                            Decision of the Court

104 Ariz. at 300, and find none. All proceedings were conducted in
compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. So far as the
record reveals, counsel represented Johnson at all stages of the proceedings,
and the sentence imposed was within the statutory guidelines. We decline
to order briefing and affirm Johnson’s conviction and sentence.

¶9             Upon the filing of this decision, counsel shall inform Johnson
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). Johnson shall have thirty days from
the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro per motion for
reconsideration or petition for review.

                               CONCLUSION

¶10           We affirm.

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

                                         4