Court Opinion

ID: 9927984
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-30 17:03:49.673495+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:43:51.787602
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 JOHN BOON, Appellant.

                             No. 1 CA-CR 23-0112
                               FILED 1-30-2024

           Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County
                        No. S8015CR202200422
          The Honorable Douglas Camacho, Judge Pro Tempore

                                  AFFIRMED

                                   COUNSEL

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

Janelle A. McEachern Attorney at Law, Chandler
By Janelle A. McEachern
Counsel for Appellant
                             STATE v. BOON
                            Decision of the Court

                       MEMORANDUM DECISION

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

K I L E Y, Judge:

¶1            A jury convicted Jason John Boon of five felonies. He now
appeals his convictions and sentences pursuant to Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969). Stating that her search
of the record has identified no arguable issues for appeal, Boon’s counsel
asks us to search the record for fundamental error. Boon was given an
opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona; he has not done
so. After reviewing the record, we affirm.

                 FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2            Our obligation in this appeal “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, 19, ¶ 1 (App. 2023) (cleaned
up).

¶3             Boon and “Sheila” (a pseudonym) were neighbors, each
living in one-half of a shared duplex in Lake Havasu City. Over time, they
developed a friendship. On April 4, 2022, Boon called Sheila at work and
told her that he wanted to “kill himself.” As she later explained, Boon “had
been having a rough time,” calling her several times the previous weekend
to express “suicidal thoughts.” When he called her on April 4, Sheila
recalled, he was “very distraught” and “agitated,” complaining about “his
ex-wife” and saying he “wanted to kill her and then kill himself.”

¶4              Sheila returned home and immediately went to Boon’s unit to
check on him. As she approached, she heard “[l]oud music” and saw a tarp
hanging from Boon’s garage door, which read: “I’m prepared to die tonight
. . . by live suicide.” Once inside Boon’s unit, she saw that he had covered
his couch and walls with plastic “so that his blood wouldn’t get all over and
make a mess for [the] landlord.” Sheila stated that Boon “was just angry at
everyone and everything” and said he “wanted to die.” He went on to tell

                                       2
                            STATE v. BOON
                           Decision of the Court

her that he “had tried to kill himself” but “couldn’t do it, so he was going
to have the cops do it.”

¶5            Sheila tried “to talk him off the ledge” but found he was
“getting more and more agitated.” She then offered to “go get [him] some”
food from Del Taco because she knew “that’s [his] favorite.” Upon stepping
outside, she was met by officers of the Lake Havasu City Police Department
who were responding to a complaint about “someone . . . blaring music.”
After she explained “what [Boon] was planning,” the officers decided to
remove themselves from the situation instead of attempting contact and
gave Sheila the contact information for Terros, a mental health crisis
response unit.

¶6            While picking up food from Del Taco, Sheila called Terros and
asked that a crisis intervention specialist come to the scene. She also
contacted “Kevin” (a pseudonym), who was both her nephew and Boon’s
friend. She urged Kevin “to get over to [Boon’s] house immediately because
he was going to kill himself.”

¶7           Kevin arrived at Boon’s residence shortly after Sheila
returned with the food. At this point, Boon was “walking around quickly
and holding a gun to his head” and saying he was “going to kill himself.”
Kevin tried to calm him and asked for the gun, but Boon refused and
continued “pacing back and forth and just talking about wanting to kill
himself.”

¶8             Suddenly, while standing in his kitchen, Boon fired a shot,
which hit the garage door. Kevin picked up and pocketed the casing. Boon
then fired a second shot, hitting the hallway ceiling. Boon then retreated to
his bedroom, locking the door behind him. A third shot rang out, and Sheila
and Kevin began screaming and banging on the door, afraid Boon had
“killed himself.” A few minutes later, however, they heard Boon’s voice
“cussing” and telling them to leave.

¶9           At this point, Kevin decided to call the police. He gave them
a “rundown of what was happening” and then, on their instructions, left
Boon’s residence.

¶10          Officer Banuelos arrived at the scene first, shortly after 8:00
p.m. He spoke with Kevin, who confirmed that Boon had fired a weapon in
his residence and that Sheila was still inside. Meanwhile, three other
members of the Lake Havasu City Police Department—Sergeant Jackson,
Officer Marshall, and Officer Melendez—also arrived. At some point, Kevin

                                     3
                              STATE v. BOON
                             Decision of the Court

handed the two shell casings to Sergeant Jackson, who placed them in his
patrol vehicle for safekeeping.

¶11          After creating a “perimeter around the neighborhood,”
Sergeant Jackson instructed Officers Banuelos, Marshall, and Melendez to
“grab a shield” and “stack up” in a protective formation. The four began
approaching Boon’s residence, removing lightbulbs outside neighboring
residences to avoid illuminating their position. Eventually, they situated
themselves behind a “flatbed trailer” outside Boon’s unit.

¶12            Boon then abruptly walked out his front door and into his
driveway, holding what appeared to be “a gun down by his right side.”
Officer Banuelos and Sergeant Jackson began shouting “commands to drop
the gun.” In response, Boon began to raise his arm, pointing the gun in the
officers’ direction. Sergeant Jackson and Officer Banuelos each fired several
shots at Boon, who made a “wincing motion” and quickly retreated into his
residence. Instead of pursuing him, the officers “tried to tuck up by the
residence just to get cover . . . in case he came back out and started firing”
at them.

¶13           Sheila, who was still inside Boon’s unit, was “frozen” in fear.
Upon hearing the shots, she “hit the ground,” afraid she would be caught
in the crossfire. She then saw Boon re-enter the residence and, shortly
thereafter, heard him moving around in the attic.

¶14            From outside, the officers also “started hearing movement
either in the attic or crawl space above [Boon’s and Sheila’s] garages.” They
“made the decision to make a retreat and obtain a better tactical advantage
across the street.” Members of the Bullhead City Police Department also
arrived at the scene. Meanwhile, Sheila “exited the residence.”

¶15           After various efforts by the Lake Havasu SWAT team, Boon
was ultimately detained without further incident and taken to the hospital.
The Bullhead City detectives then searched his residence, finding a
handwritten suicide note, a “magazine for a pistol,” and live rounds for a
“Hornady 40 Smith & Wesson.” Later investigation revealed that the
casings collected by Kevin were also from a “Hornady 40 Smith & Wesson.”

¶16            Despite searching Boon’s residence, including the attics above
Boon’s and Sheila’s adjoining units, the police did not find any firearms.
Corporal Alvarez testified that the attics were difficult to search because
they were filled with “confetti-style” insulation. At trial, Sheila testified that
Boon told her in a subsequent phone call from jail that he “hid” his gun
“somewhere in [her] house.”

                                        4
                             STATE v. BOON
                            Decision of the Court

¶17           A grand jury indicted Boon on four counts of Aggravated
Assault, class 2 dangerous felonies in violation of A.R.S. §§ 13-704 and
-1204(A)(2), and two counts of Disorderly Conduct Involving a Weapon,
class 6 dangerous felonies in violation of A.R.S. §§ 13-704 and -2904(A)(6).
The State later filed an allegation of aggravating factors under A.R.S.
§ 13-701(D), including, as to all counts, that each victim suffered physical,
emotional, or financial harm, and, as to the Aggravated Assault counts, that
Boon “committed the crime out of malice toward the victim because of the
victim’s employment as a peace officer.” See id. § 13-701(D)(25).

¶18          At the arraignment, Boon pleaded not guilty. At a hearing in
September 2022, at defense counsel’s request, the court conducted an
advisement under State v. Donald, 198 Ariz. 406 (App. 2000). After being
advised of the possible sentencing ranges if he were found guilty of the
charged offenses and if he chose to accept the plea offer, Boon indicated that
he would like to proceed with a jury trial.

¶19           The court conducted a four-day jury trial in February 2023. At
the close of the State’s evidence, Boon moved for a judgment of acquittal
under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 20. The court denied the motion,
finding that the State presented sufficient evidence for the jury to convict
Boon of each charged offense. Defense counsel then indicated that Boon did
not want to testify. The court directly addressed Boon, who confirmed that
he did not wish to testify. Counsel then delivered closing argument.

¶20          After deliberating, the jury found Boon guilty of all four
counts of Aggravated Assault and one count of Disorderly Conduct
Involving a Weapon.1

¶21            The court then conducted an aggravation hearing. After
deliberating, the jury found only one of the alleged aggravating factors, i.e.,
that Sheila, the victim of one of the Disorderly Conduct counts, suffered
emotional distress.

1 The first Disorderly Conduct charge related to Boon’s interactions with

Sheila inside his residence; the second charge related to Boon’s
confrontation with the officers outside his home. Without objection from
Boon, the second charge was submitted to the jury as a lesser-included
offense of each of the Aggravated Assault charges. Based on the jury’s
guilty verdicts on all of the Aggravated Assault counts, the court dismissed
the second Disorderly Conduct charge.

                                      5
                            STATE v. BOON
                           Decision of the Court

¶22           The court conducted the sentencing hearing in March 2023. In
his remarks to the court, Boon expressed regret for his conduct on April 4,
2022, explaining, “At the time of my arrest and in the months prior I had
fallen further into my drug and alcohol addiction and was not in a good
place mentally.” Since his arrest, he went on, he “regained [his] sobriety”
and “plan[s] on continuing [his] road to recovery.”

¶23            Consistent with the jury’s findings, the court found one
aggravating circumstance with respect to Boon’s Disorderly Conduct
conviction—that the victim suffered emotional harm—and no aggravating
circumstances with respect to the Aggravated Assault convictions. As for
mitigating circumstances, the court found that, at the time of the offenses,
Boon was undergoing “unusual or substantial duress” that limited his
ability to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his
conduct with the requirements of the law. The court found that an
aggravated sentence was warranted for the Disorderly Conduct conviction,
noting that Sheila’s demeanor during her testimony illustrated the
“emotional impact” of Boon’s conduct. The court imposed an aggravated
sentence of three years, with credit for 339 days of pre-sentence
incarceration. See also A.R.S. § 13-704(A). The court imposed a “slightly
mitigat[ed] sentence” of ten years for each of the four Aggravated Assault
convictions, see also A.R.S. § 13-704(A), with the sentences to run
concurrently to one another but consecutive to Boon’s sentence for
Disorderly Conduct. Boon timely appealed. We have jurisdiction. See Ariz.
Const. art. 6, § 9; A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, 13-4033(A)(1).

                              DISCUSSION

¶24            After reviewing the entire record, see State v. Thompson, 229
Ariz. 43, 45, ¶ 3 (App. 2012), we find no reversible error. No evidence was
obtained in a manner that violated Boon’s constitutional or statutory rights.
All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with applicable
statutes and court rules. Counsel represented Boon at all stages of the
proceedings. The sentences imposed were within statutory parameters,
with credit given for time spent in pretrial custody.

                              CONCLUSION

¶25          We affirm Boon’s convictions and sentences.

¶26            Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel shall inform
Boon of the status of the appeal and of his future options. Counsel has no
further obligations unless, upon review, counsel finds an issue appropriate
to raise with the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. See State v.

                                     6
                            STATE v. BOON
                           Decision of the Court

Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584–85 (1984). Boon shall have thirty days from the
date of this decision to file a motion for reconsideration or petition for
review on his own behalf.

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

                                       7