STATE v. LOCKETT

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, ) ) Appellee, ) ) v. ) ) LAVELL ABDOL LOCKETT, ) ) Appellant. ) ) ) ) __________________________________) DIVISION ONE FILED: 07/03/2012 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: sls 1 CA-CR 11-0770 DEPARTMENT E MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Coconino County Cause No. S0300CR2010000963 The Honorable Mark R. Moran, Judge AFFIRMED AS AMENDED _________________________________________________________________ Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix Wendy F. White Flagstaff Attorney for Appellant _________________________________________________________________ O R O Z C O, Judge ¶1 Lavell Abdol Lockett (Defendant) appeals his conviction for one count of possession of drug paraphernalia, a class 6 felony. ¶2 In accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), Defendant s counsel filed a brief advising this court that after a search of the entire record on appeal, she found no arguable ground for reversal or question of law that was not frivolous. Counsel identified two issues, however, that she asks us to review for fundamental error. This court granted Defendant an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, but he did not do so. ¶3 Pursuant to Anders and Leon, our obligation in this appeal is to review the entire record for reversible error. State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d 89, 96 (App. 1999). After meritorious reviewing grounds for the entire reversal record, and we find therefore no affirm Defendant s conviction and sentence. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1 ¶4 by Defendant was in Page, Arizona when he was contacted Page Police Officer Clark 1 while Officer Clark was On appeal, we view the facts in a light most favorable to sustaining the verdicts. State v. Rutledge, 205 Ariz. 7, 9 n.1, ¶ 2, 66 P.3d 50, 52 n.1 (2003). 2 investigating Defendant a separate appeared crime. nervous and Officer asked Clark Defendant noticed if he that would consent to a search of his person for weapons. When Defendant began his backing up and putting his hands in pockets, Officer Clark began to fear for [his] safety and conducted a Terry2 search of Defendant. During the search, Officer Clark identified what [he] knew from [his] training and experience to be a meth pipe. The pipe was seized, placed in evidence and tested positive for methamphetamine residue. ¶5 drug Defendant was indicted on one count of possession of paraphernalia, (A.R.S.) section in violation 13-3415.A of (2010). Arizona The Revised State Statutes alleged three previous felony convictions of a non-dangerous nature, one of which was an allegeable historical prior pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-105.22(d) (Supp. 2011).3 The State gave notice of its intent to seek an enhanced sentence based on Defendant s historical prior and to impeach his testimony based on all previous convictions. 2 See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 (1968) (If an officer reasonably concludes a suspect is armed or a threat to officer safety, the officer may conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him. ). 3 Absent material revision after the date offense, we cite a statute s current version. 3 of an alleged ¶6 Defendant entered a plea of not guilty and was tried before a jury. testified At trial, Officer Clark identified Defendant and about the methamphetamine pipe. search and his discovery of the Following the close of the State s case- in-chief, Defendant motioned for judgment of acquittal pursuant to Rule 20 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. The trial court denied Defendant s motion, and thereafter, Defendant testified. ¶7 The Following an jury unanimously evidentiary returned hearing on a verdict Defendant s of guilty. prior felony convictions, the trial court found the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant had three prior convictions for purposes of sentencing enhancement and Defendant s third prior conviction therefore constituted a historical prior pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-105.22(d). The court made no findings as to mitigating or aggravating circumstances and sentenced Defendant as a category two repetitive offender to the presumptive term of 1.75 years. The court awarded Defendant sixty-seven days of presentence incarceration credit. ¶8 Defendant timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21.A.1 (2003), 4033.A.1 (2010). 4 13-4031 (2010) and 13- DISCUSSION ¶9 We have read counsel s brief and carefully reviewed and considered the entire record. We find no reversible error. Rulings on the Admissibility of Evidence ¶10 Defense counsel raises two issues that she submits might constitute error: (1) whether the trial court erred by denying Defendant s motion to admit self-serving statements he allegedly made to police prior to his arrest; and (2) whether the court erred by admitting a certified copy of Defendant s Arizona Department of Corrections (ADOC) pen pack over his objection. ¶11 Upon review, we find no err. We review the trial court s rulings admissibility of evidence for an abuse of discretion. on the State v. King, 213 Ariz. 632, 635, ¶ 7, 146 P.3d 1274, 1277 (App. 2006); see also State v. Amaya-Ruiz, 166 Ariz. 152, 167, 800 P.2d 1260, 1275 (1990) ( The trial court has considerable discretion in determining the relevance and admissibility of evidence, and we will not disturb its ruling absent a clear abuse of that discretion. ). Self-Serving Statements ¶12 Before trial, Defendant motioned in limine to admit statements he purportedly made to police two weeks prior to his arrest in which he claimed unknown individuals were leaving drug 5 paraphernalia at his residence. Defendant asserted these statements supported his claim that the methamphetamine pipe was in his possession when he was arrested because he was in the process of turning it over to police. ¶13 Defendant argued the statements either were not hearsay or fell within several exceptions to the rule against hearsay.4 Specifically, he claimed the statements: (1) establish[ed] his then-existing state of mind prior to the time of the alleged offense, pursuant to Rule 803(3) of the Arizona Rules of Evidence; (2) were made under circumstances that provide guarantees of trustworthiness, pursuant to Rule 807; (3) established hearsay as his defined state in of mind Rule and 801(c) were because therefore they were not not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted; and (4) the probative value outweighed by of their the statements potential for was not prejudice substantially and should be admitted under Rule 403. ¶14 A hearsay and defendant s not out-of-court admissible if denial introduced by is self-serving the defendant. State v. Wooten, 193 Ariz. 357, 366, ¶ 47, 972 P.2d 993, 1002 (App. 1998). of 4 Here, Defendant s statements were the equivalent self-serving out-of-court denials. Ariz. R. Evid. 802. 6 Moreover, Defendant offered the statements to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein and the statements thus fall within the definition of hearsay pursuant to Rule 801(c). not abuse its discretion by The trial court therefore did finding Defendant s purported statements to be self-serving and inadmissible hearsay. Ariz. R. Evid. 802. See id; Because the court properly excluded the statements based on the rule against hearsay, we do not address Defendant s argument regarding whether the court could have also excluded the statement pursuant to Rule 403. ¶15 We further find the statements do not fall within any exception to the hearsay rule. Contrary to Defendant s assertion, the statements are not evidence of his then-existing state of mind and are also not indicative of any future motive, intent or plan. See Ariz. R. Evid. 803(3); State v. Lehman, 126 Ariz. 388, 390, 616 P.2d 63, 65 (App. 1980). defendant s self-serving statement In addition, a generally lacks the guarantees of trustworthiness to be admissible under Rule 807. See State v. Smith, 138 Ariz. 79, 84, 673 P.2d 17, 22 (1983); State v. Duffy, 124 Ariz. 267, 275, 603 P.2d 538, 546 (App. 1979). ¶16 Therefore, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant s motion or otherwise err by excluding his statements. 7 Evidence of Defendant s Prior Felony Convictions ¶17 Defendant claimed the admission of the ADOC pen pack violated his right to confront witnesses against him pursuant to the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution (2004). and Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 Defendant also claimed the pen pack was inadmissible hearsay and did not fall within the public records exception to the rule against hearsay because records of matters observed by law enforcement personnel are not admissible pursuant to Rule 803(8). ¶18 In Crawford, Confrontation Clause the Supreme prohibits a Court held testimonial that the out-of-court statement from being admitted against a defendant unless the defendant declarant. has had the opportunity 541 U.S. at 59. to cross-examine the However, the Confrontation Clause applies only to statements that are testimonial in nature, meaning declarations or affirmations made for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact at trial. State v. Damper, 223 Ariz. 572, 575, ¶ 10, 225 P.3d 1148, 1151 (App. 2010). Here, the ADOC pen pack was not created to establish or prove facts for Amendment evidence. a trial or consideration court was proceeding, implicated by and its thus, no admission Sixth into See State v. Bennett, 216 Ariz. 15, 17-18, ¶ 7, 162 8 P.3d 654, 656-57 (App. 2007) (finding certified ADOC documents were non-testimonial for purposes of the Confrontation Clause because they were signed and completed in the ordinary course of business ); State v. King, 213 Ariz. 632, 638, ¶ 24, 146 P.3d 1274, 1280 (App. 2006) (records of prior convictions are nontestimonial because they are created and maintained regardless of possible future criminal activity by the defendants and are not recorded exclusively in anticipation of future litigation for the purpose of establishing facts ). ¶19 Furthermore, ADOC prison records are statutorily required to be maintained and do not document a matter observed by law-enforcement personnel. shall maintain committed to a the master See A.R.S. § 31-221 (2002) (ADOC record department ); file Ariz. on R. each Evid. person who is 803(8)(A)(ii). The records therefore come within the public records exception to the rule against hearsay. See Ariz. R. Evid. 803(8)(A)(ii) (records of a public office that are required by law to be maintained are public records and are admissible as exceptions to the hearsay rule); State v. Dixon, 127 Ariz. 554, 558, 622 P.2d 501, 506 (App. 1980) (holding that an ADOC pen pack was properly admitted as a public record pursuant to Rule 803(8)); see also State v. Gillies, 142 Ariz. 564, 572, 691 P.2d 655, 663 (1984) (prison documents are public records for admissibility 9 purposes); King, 213 Ariz. at 638, ¶ 24, 146 P.3d at 1280 (records of prior convictions are public records). ¶20 We find the trial court properly admitted Defendant s pen pack because the record was non-testimonial in nature and fell within the public records exception to the rule against hearsay. Defendant s Trial and Conviction ¶21 Defendant was represented by counsel and present at all critical stages of the proceedings. The jury instructions were a proper interpretation and explanation of Arizona law, and Defendant did not object to the instructions. Defendant was present during the trial, testified on his own behalf and crossexamined the State s witnesses. All proceedings were conducted in accordance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure and substantial evidence supported the jury s finding of guilt. Accordingly, we affirm Defendant s conviction. Defendant s Sentence ¶22 At sentencing, Defendant and his counsel were given an opportunity to speak and present witnesses. Defendant was given the opportunity to present arguments in support of mitigating circumstances. The trial court imposed a legal enhanced sentence based on its finding that Defendant had one allegeable historical prior, subjecting him to sentencing as a category two 10 repetitive offender pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-703.B.2 and 13-703.I (Supp. 2011). The court also properly awarded Defendant sixty- seven days of presentence incarceration credit. CONCLUSION ¶23 For the foregoing reasons, Defendant s conviction and sentence are affirmed. After the filing of this decision, counsel s obligations pertaining to Defendant s representation in this appeal have ended. Counsel need do no more than inform Defendant of the status of the appeal and Defendant s future options, unless counsel s review reveals an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984). Defendant 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. /S/ ____________________________________ PATRICIA A. OROZCO, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /S/ ___________________________________ PHILIP HALL, Judge /S/ ___________________________________ JOHN C. GEMMILL, Judge 11

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.