Court Opinion

ID: 9839912
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-14 17:05:08.573654+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:42:05.296586
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  UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

               BYRON MICHAEL HARRISON, JR., Appellant.

                              No. 1 CA-CR 23-0065
                                FILED 9-14-2023

            Appeal from the Superior Court in Coconino County
                          No. S0300CR202000757
                     The Honorable Ted S. Reed, Judge

                                   AFFIRMED

                                    COUNSEL

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

Janelle A. McEachern, Chandler
Counsel for Appellant

                        MEMORANDUM DECISION

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

P E R K I N S, Judge:

¶1             Byron Michael Harrison, Jr. timely appealed in accordance
with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297
(1969), following his convictions for possession of narcotic drugs for sale,
possession of dangerous drugs, and possession of drug paraphernalia.
Harrison’s counsel searched the record and found no arguable question of
law that is not frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; State v. Melendez, ___
Ariz. ___, ___, ¶ 1, 2023 WL 4728653, at *1 (Ariz. App. July 25, 2023).
Harrison had the opportunity to file a supplemental brief but did not do so.

¶2           We must “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 [Harrison].”
Melendez, ___ Ariz. at ___, ¶ 1 (cleaned up). Having reviewed the record,
we find no reversible error and affirm.

                 FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶3           In September 2020, Coconino County Sheriff’s deputies
approached a suspicious vehicle at Twin Arrows Navajo Casino. The
deputies found Harrison standing outside the vehicle with the driver’s side
door and trunk open. The deputies searched the vehicle and uncovered
drug paraphernalia, a digital scale, over $1,000 in cash, and a safe. Inside
the safe, deputies found over 500 fentanyl pills and a bag of
methamphetamine.

¶4           The State arrested and charged Harrison with possession of
narcotic drugs for sale, possession of dangerous drugs, and possession of
drug paraphernalia. During a three-day trial, the State offered testimony
from the responding deputy, a detective, and a forensic scientist. The jury
found Harrison guilty on all counts.

¶5            Three weeks after the jury found Harrison guilty, the superior
court received a letter from a third-party alleging juror misconduct. The
letter alleged that a juror insinuated that the jury would find Harrison
guilty after the first day of trial. The court did not hold an evidentiary
hearing regarding the letter.

¶6             At the sentencing hearing, Harrison moved for a new trial
citing the letter, which the superior court denied as untimely. The court
found both aggravating and mitigating factors, and Harrison’s sentencing
range was enhanced because of his two historical prior felony convictions.
Accordingly, the court sentenced Harrison to concurrent prison terms of

                                      2
                          STATE v. HARRISON
                          Decision of the Court

fourteen years for possession of narcotic drugs for sale, eight years for
possession of dangerous drugs, and three years for possession of drug
paraphernalia. The court awarded him 227 days presentence incarceration
credit.

                              DISCUSSION

¶7            After reviewing the record, the only arguable question on
appeal is whether the superior court erred in failing to conduct an
evidentiary hearing on the letter alleging juror misconduct and denying the
request for a new trial. We review for an abuse of discretion. State v. Hall,
204 Ariz. 442, 447, ¶ 16 (2003).

¶8            The superior court’s response to alleged juror misconduct
should be “commensurate with the severity of the threat posed.” State v.
Miller, 178 Ariz. 555, 557 (1994) (cleaned up). And juror misconduct only
warrants a new trial if “the defense shows actual prejudice or if prejudice
may be fairly presumed from the facts.” Id. at 558 (emphasis omitted).

¶9            The nature of the letter did not warrant an evidentiary
hearing. The letter, which was not a sworn affidavit, was not brought to the
superior court’s attention until three weeks after the jury found Harrison
guilty. And Harrison failed to identify any actual prejudice arising from the
alleged misconduct. See id. We find no abuse of discretion.

¶10             The record reveals sufficient evidence from which the jury
could determine, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Harrison is guilty of the
charged offenses. The record reflects that all proceedings were conducted
in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. See State v.
Gomez, 27 Ariz. App. 248, 251 (1976) (citing Ariz. R. Crim. P. 1.2). Harrison
was present for all critical proceedings and was represented by counsel at
all stages of the proceedings. Before sentencing, the superior court received
a pre-sentence report. At sentencing, Harrison had an opportunity to speak.
The court stated on the record the evidence and materials it considered and
the factors it found in imposing the sentence. The superior court imposed
sentences within the statutory limits. See A.R.S. §§ 13-701 to -709.

                              CONCLUSION

¶11          We affirm Harrison’s convictions and resulting sentences.

¶12          Defense counsel’s obligations pertaining to Harrison’s
representation in this appeal have ended. Counsel need do no more than
inform Harrison of the outcome of this appeal and his future options,

                                     3
                          STATE v. HARRISON
                          Decision of the Court

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). Harrison has thirty days from the date of this
decision to proceed, if he wishes, with a pro per motion for reconsideration
or petition for review.

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

                                        4