Court Opinion

ID: 9962362
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-23 16:02:20.265281+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:28.904125
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

                 DEJUAN MARKEISS HOPSON, Appellant.

                             No. 1 CA-CR 23-0071
                               FILED 4-23-2024

           Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                        No. CR2018-139646-002
                The Honorable Adam D. Driggs, Judge

                                  AFFIRMED

                                   COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Phillip A. Tomas
Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix
By Jennifer Roach
Counsel for Appellant
                      MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Brian Y. Furuya delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge James B. Morse Jr. and Judge Cynthia J. Bailey joined.

F U R U Y A, Judge:

¶1             Dejuan Markeiss Hopson appeals the superior court’s
resentencing on Count 1 of his October 2019 conviction for misconduct
involving a deadly weapon, possessing a firearm while being a prohibited
possessor in violation of A.R.S. § 13-3102(A)(4), a Class 4 felony. Hopson’s
counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), advising this court she has
searched the record and found no arguable issue to raise on appeal. She
requests this court independently review the record for reversible error. See
State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537 ¶ 30 (App. 1999) (stating that this court
reviews the entire record for reversible error).

¶2           We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section
9 of the Arizona Constitution, and Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”)
§§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and 13-4033(A). Finding no reversible error, we
affirm Hopson’s resentencing. We correct clerical errors in the September 8,
2020 and September 1, 2022 sentencing orders.

                 FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶3             The history of this case is set forth in this court’s
memorandum decision affirming Hopson’s convictions and vacating and
remanding sentencing on Count 1: a Class 4 felony for possessing a firearm
while being a prohibited possessor in violation of A.R.S. § 13-3102(A)(4).
See State v. Hopson, 1 CA-CR 20-0444, 2021 WL 5002366 (Ariz. App. Oct. 28,
2021) (mem. decision). Therefore, we do not recount that history here.

¶4            Relevant to Hopson’s sentencing on Count 1, the court found
two prior felony convictions: assisting a criminal street gang, a Class 3
felony, and second-degree burglary, a non-dangerous Class 3 felony. And
the jury implicitly found Hopson committed Count 1 while on probation.
On Count 1, the court sentenced Hopson as a category three repetitive
offender to a mitigated term of six years’ imprisonment plus a two-year
enhancement. See A.R.S. § 13-703(J).

                                      2
                            STATE v. HOPSON
                            Decision of the Court

¶5           Following Hopson’s appeal, we directed the superior court to
sentence Hopson, “as required by A.R.S. § 13-708(C) to no less than the
presumptive term of imprisonment for a category three repetitive offender,
plus the two-year enhancement under A.R.S. § 13-708(D).” Id. at *3 ¶ 16.
And, we explained, A.R.S. § 3-708(E) requires that the term of
imprisonment run consecutively to Hopson’s sentence for his 2014
probation case. Id.

¶6             On remand, the superior court sentenced Hopson on Count 1
to 12 years’ imprisonment beginning on September 1, 2022. The court
awarded Hopson 809 days of presentence credit. Hopson timely appealed.
Because we previously affirmed Hopson’s convictions and remanded only
for sentencing on Count 1, this appeal concerns only resentencing on Count
1. See State v. Nordstrom, 230 Ariz. 110, 116 ¶ 19 (2012) (explaining a trial
court cannot reconsider validity of previously affirmed convictions on
remand for resentencing).

                                DISCUSSION

¶7            We have reviewed the record for reversible error and find
none. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300; Clark, 196 Ariz. at 537 ¶ 30. Hopson and his
counsel were present at all stages of the resentencing proceedings and had
the opportunity to speak.

¶8              The presumptive term for a category three repetitive offender
for a Class 4 felony is ten years. A.R.S. § 13-703(J). Thus, the 12-year sentence
complied with the mandate requiring the presumptive term plus a two-year
enhancement. See Hopson, 1 CA-CR 20-0444, at *3 ¶ 15; A.R.S. § 13-708(C)–
(D). The sentence, as required, also ran consecutively to his sentence for his
2014 probation case. The State maintains that the court miscalculated the
amount of Hopson’s presentence incarceration credit. Nevertheless, it
agrees that we may not correct an illegally lenient sentence when, as here,
the State did not cross-appeal the erroneous calculation of presentence
credit. See State v. Garcia, ___ Ariz. ___, ___ ¶ 28, 541 P.3d 559, 565 (App.
2023) (“We lack jurisdiction to correct an illegally lenient sentence absent
appeal or cross-appeal by the State.”).

                                       3
                           STATE v. HOPSON
                           Decision of the Court

¶9            Thus, because the court followed the mandate and any
presentence credit errors benefited Hopson, we find no reversible,
prejudicial error.

¶10            We note and correct the following clerical errors. See Ariz. R.
Crim. P. 24.4. The September 1, 2022 Sentencing Order contains two clerical
errors. The order states the offense date for Count 1, possession of a weapon
by a prohibited possessor, as August 12, 2018; it should list August 11, 2018
as the offense date. The order lists the offense date for the prior conviction
of assisting a criminal street gang in CR2014-104991-003 as December 1,
2013; it should state a date range from December 1, 2013 to January 29, 2014.
We, thus, modify the September 1, 2022 Sentencing Order as follows:

       (1) at page one, under Count 001, strike “8/12/2018” and
           insert “8/11/2018”; and

       (2) at page one, following “STREET GANG,” strike “on
           12/01/2013” and insert “on or between 12/01/2013 and
           1/29/2014”.

¶11           We also note the September 8, 2020 Sentencing Order
misstates the date of the offense for the prior conviction of assisting a
criminal street gang in CR2014-104991-003. We, thus, modify the September
8, 2020 Sentencing Order as follows:

       at page two, following “STREET GANG,” strike “on
       12/01/2013” and insert “on or between 12/01/2013 and
       1/29/2014”.

                              CONCLUSION

¶12           For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the court’s resentencing
on Count 1 of Hopson’s 2018 conviction and correct the clerical errors
consistent with this decision.

                                      4
                          STATE v. HOPSON
                          Decision of the Court

¶13           Upon the filing of this decision, we direct counsel to inform
Hopson of the status of the appeal and of his future options. Defense
counsel has no further obligations unless, upon review, counsel identifies
an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by
petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584–85 (1984).
Hopson shall have 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he
desires, with a pro se motion for reconsideration or petition for review.

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

                                       5