State v. Griffin

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 DIVISION ONE FILED: 04/24/2012 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: sls IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appellee, v. DAMON DEXTER GRIFFIN, Appellant. No. 1 CA-CR 11-0281 DEPARTMENT E MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County Cause No. S8015CR201000966 The Honorable Steven F. Conn, Judge AFFIRMED Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel, Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix Mohave County Appellate Defender s Office By Jill L. Evans, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Kingman G E M M I L L, Judge ¶1 sentence Damon Dexter Griffin appeals from his conviction and for possession of dangerous drugs for sale (methamphetamine), a class two felony, and possession of drug paraphernalia (methamphetamine), a class six felony. Griffin s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), stating that he has searched the record and found no arguable question of law and requesting that this court examine the record for reversible error. Griffin was afforded the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief but did not do so. See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d 89, 96 (App. 1999). For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 therefrom We view the in the light convictions. facts and most all reasonable favorable to inferences sustaining the State v. Powers, 200 Ariz. 123, 124, ¶ 2, 23 P.3d 668, 669 (App. 2001). ¶3 On September 6, 2010, several Bullhead City Police Department officers executed a search warrant on the residence rented and solely occupied by Griffin. answered the door, officers entered and his cooperated residence, Griffin was present, with the officers. As Griffin was handcuffed and Detective G. read Griffin his Miranda rights. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Griffin See Miranda v. indicated that he understood his Miranda rights. ¶4 Detective G. proceeded to question Griffin and Griffin disclosed that he had had a little bit of methamphetamine in 2 his safe. Griffin led police to the safe, provided multiple combinations, and the police ultimately used tools to force the safe open. Inside safe, officers totaling methamphetamine the 1.93 grams, found a two razor baggies blade, of unused baggies, a scale, a mirror with drug residue, multiple glass pipes, and a spoon. Officers also discovered an IO ME or pay/owe sheet purportedly listing debts owed to Griffin and an additional glass pipe in plain view in Griffin s living room. ¶5 Detective G. reported that during the search, Griffin admitted to selling $40.00 worth of methamphetamine to Jim from the cable company a few days prior. Griffin also reportedly admitted to having previously given methamphetamine to unknown females who had visited him. Further, Griffin reportedly admitted that he purchased one-half to one ounce of methamphetamine from the Las Vegas area once every couple of months. ¶6 2011. Griffin was tried by jury on March 22 and March 23, On the first day of trial, the trial court held a voluntariness hearing and found that during the execution of the search warrant, Griffin was Mirandized, waived his rights, and voluntarily provided statements to police. the state presented a criminalist who During the trial, testified that the substance found in the two baggies was a combined 1.93 grams of methamphetamine. Detective G. testified that 1.93 grams was 3 consistent with possession for sale as well as personal use because one-quarter to one-half of a gram was the most common amount of methamphetamine sold in Bullhead City. Detective G. also testified to Griffin s purported admissions, including that he had previously sold $40.00 of methamphetamine to Jim, a sale that the state claimed had been recorded on Griffin s pay/owe sheet as Jimbo $40.00. ¶7 In his defense, Griffin presented testimony from his landlord and himself identifying non-drug related explanations for each entry on the pay/owe sheet. Griffin also denied telling Detective G. that he had sold methamphetamine to Jim or travelled to Las Vegas to purchase methamphetamine. Griffin further testified that the paraphernalia in his safe was for personal use and not related to resale. ¶8 with The jury returned a guilty verdict on both counts, a special verdict methamphetamine. At that sentencing, aggravating factors amount methamphetamine of the and found in paraphernalia the trial mitigation involved for a court the involved found no minuscule sales case and Griffin s lack of previous convictions within the previous ten years. Ultimately, mitigated drugs sentence for sentence sale of six the of trial 5.5 court years (methamphetamine) months for for sentenced possession and possession 4 a Griffin to a of dangerous concurrent mitigated of drug paraphernalia (methamphetamine), each with thirty days credit for time served. ¶9 Griffin timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and Arizona Revised Statutes ( A.R.S ) sections 12-120.21(A)(1) (2003), 13-4031 (2010), and 13-4033(A)(1) (2010). 1 DISCUSSION ¶10 Having considered defense counsel s brief and examined the record for reversible error, see Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881, we find none. The sentence imposed falls within the range permitted by law, and the evidence presented supports the conviction. As far as the record reveals, Griffin was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, and these proceedings were conducted in compliance with his constitutional and statutory rights and the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. ¶11 684 Pursuant to State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, P.2d 154, 156-57 appeal have ended. (1984), counsel s obligations in this Counsel need do no more than inform Griffin of the disposition of the appeal and his future options, unless counsel s review reveals an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. 1 Griffin has We cite to the current versions of the statutes when no revisions material to this decision have occurred since the date of the alleged offense. 5 thirty days from the date of this decision in which to proceed, if he desires, with a pro se motion for reconsideration petition for review. CONCLUSION ¶12 The convictions and sentences are affirmed. ____/s/_________________________ JOHN C. GEMMILL, Judge CONCURRING: ___/s/_____________________________ PATRICIA A. OROZCO, Presiding Judge ___/s/_____________________________ PHILIP HALL, Judge 6 or

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.