Court Opinion

ID: 9961241
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-18 15:05:41.924651+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:32.596665
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

                      JOHN HOYT FULLEN, Appellant.

                             No. 1 CA-CR 22-0407
                              FILED 4-18-2024

           Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County
                        No. P1300CR201400199
                The Honorable Debra R. Phelan, Judge

                      VACATED AND REMANDED

                                   COUNSEL

Yavapai County Attorney's Office, Prescott
By Glen M. Asay
Counsel for Appellee

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

                       MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge James B. Morse Jr. delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz and Judge Daniel J. Kiley joined.

M O R S E, Judge:

¶1            John Hoyt Fullen appeals the superior court's denial of his
petition to expunge marijuana-related offense records. For the following
reasons, we vacate the superior court's order and remand.

             FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2           In 2014, a grand jury indicted Fullen for: (1) Transportation of
Marijuana for Sale (Less than Two Pounds); and (2) Possession of Drug
Paraphernalia. As part of a plea deal, Fullen pled guilty to one count of
Possession of Marijuana for Sale (Less than Two Pounds). In 2015, the
superior court placed Fullen on four years of supervised probation.

¶3           In December 2021, Fullen filed a petition to expunge his
offense under A.R.S. § 36-2862. The State objected, arguing that the offense
of Possession of Marijuana for Sale was a sale-related offense not eligible
for expungement under A.R.S. § 36-2862. The State also argued the offense
was not eligible for expungement under A.R.S. § 36-2682 because the
offense involved more than 2.5 ounces of marijuana. Fullen requested a
hearing on the petition. In February 2022, the superior court denied Fullen's
petition without a hearing and without making any findings of fact. In
August 2022, Fullen filed a second petition to expunge and requested a
hearing. The superior court denied this petition in August 2022, without a
hearing, finding "the offense described in the petition is not eligible for
expungement under A.R.S. § 36-2862."

¶4             Fullen timely appealed the August order, and his attorney
filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
After reviewing the record, we ordered briefing pursuant to Penson v. Ohio,
488 U.S. 75 (1988), and asked both Fullen's counsel and the State to file briefs
addressing: (1) whether the superior court erred in failing to hold an
evidentiary hearing before denying Fullen's petition; and (2) whether the
superior court entered sufficient findings of fact to justify the denial of
Fullen's petition.

                                       2
                            STATE v. FULLEN
                           Decision of the Court

¶5           Both parties did so, and we have jurisdiction.        A.R.S. §§
12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, -4033(A)(3), 36-2862(F).

                               DISCUSSION

¶6            We review the denial of a petition for expungement for an
abuse of discretion. State v. Hall, 234 Ariz. 374, 375, ¶ 3 (App. 2014).

¶7            Under A.R.S. § 36-2862(A)(1), an individual who has been
convicted by plea of "[p]ossessing, consuming or transporting two and
one-half ounces or less of marijuana" may petition the superior court to
have the record of the offense expunged. In denying or granting a petition,
the superior court "shall issue a signed order or minute entry granting or
denying the petition in which it makes findings of fact and conclusions of
law." A.R.S. § 36-2862(B)(4). Section 36-2862(B)(3) mandates the superior
court to grant the petition "unless the prosecuting agency establishes by
clear and convincing evidence that the petitioner is not eligible for
expungement."

¶8             Fullen argues the superior court erred by not holding an
evidentiary hearing or entering sufficient facts in its order denying his
petition because the proceedings before the superior court, "established no
more than the amount of marijuana was less than two pounds." See A.R.S.
§ 36-2862(B)(2)(b) (permitting the superior court to hold an evidentiary
hearing if "there are genuine disputes of fact regarding whether the petition
should be granted").

¶9             The State argues that we should not remand for an
evidentiary hearing because "Possession of Marijuana for Sale . . . is not one
of the conviction's [sic] A.R.S. § 36-2862 lists as eligible for expungement."
The State also argues remand is not necessary because the record contained
sufficient facts to determine that "the total weight of the marijuana was in
excess of 2.5 ounces but less than two pounds."

¶10            As to the State's first argument, we recently concluded that
"sale-related" offenses are included within the expungement statute. State
v. Sorensen, 255 Ariz. 316, 320, ¶ 12 (App. 2023); A.R.S. § 36-2862(A)(1).
Although the State argues that possession of marijuana for sale is not
eligible for expungement, it neither acknowledges Sorenson nor challenges
its analysis of the statutory text. In the absence of such argument, we
decline to depart from Sorenson. See Castillo v. Indus. Comm'n, 21 Ariz. App.
465, 471 (1974) (noting that we consider our decisions "as highly persuasive
and binding, unless we are convinced that the prior decisions are based
upon clearly erroneous principles"). Therefore, the superior court erred

                                      3
                             STATE v. FULLEN
                            Decision of the Court

when it determined that Fullen's conviction for possession of marijuana for
sale was per se ineligible for expungement.

¶11             The superior court also erred by failing to make statutorily
required findings of fact as to the quantity of marijuana involved in the
offense when it denied Fullen's petition. See A.R.S. § 36-2862(B)(4); see also
State v. Santillanes, 254 Ariz. 301, 309–10, ¶¶ 35–36 (App. 2022) (vacating the
superior court's expungement order for failure to include findings of fact
and conclusions of law), vacated in part on other grounds, 256 Ariz. 480 (2024).

¶12           Fullen argues that an evidentiary hearing is necessary to
determine whether his offense involved less than 2.5 ounces of marijuana
and, thus, is eligible for expungement. The State asserts that a hearing is
unnecessary because the superior court could determine the marijuana
amount from the grand jury transcript and the State's response to Fullen's
expungement motion. The State bears the burden of proving ineligibility
by clear and convincing evidence, and we leave for the superior court to
determine whether an evidentiary hearing is necessary to decide the
amount of marijuana involved in Fullen's offense. Cf. Santillanes, 254 Ariz.
at 308, ¶ 29 ("Generally, when the State objects to an expungement, the
superior court should hold an evidentiary hearing before deciding the
petition.").

                               CONCLUSION

¶13           We vacate and remand for further proceedings consistent
with this decision.

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

                                        4