STATE OF ARIZONA v. JOSEPH DAN-PAUL JENKINS
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 FILED BY CLERK MAY 14 2012 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. JOSEPH DAN-PAUL JENKINS, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 CA-CR 2011-0375 DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF COCHISE COUNTY Cause No. CR201000950 Honorable James L. Conlogue, Judge AFFIRMED Emily Danies V à S Q U E Z, Presiding Judge. Tucson Attorney for Appellant ¶1 Following a jury trial, appellant Joseph Jenkins was convicted of knowingly possessing a weapon as a prohibited possessor. See A.R.S. §§ 13-3102(A)(4), (K),1 13-3101(A)(7)(b), (d). The trial court found Jenkins had two historical prior felony convictions and sentenced him to the presumptive, ten-year sentence. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999). Counsel states she has reviewed the record in compliance with Anders and has been unable to find any arguable questions of law to raise on appeal. She asks us to search the record for fundamental error. Jenkins has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶2 Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, the evidence was sufficient to support the jury s finding of guilt. See State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999). On November 29, 2010, Jenkins, a convicted felon who was on probation, possessed a handgun. ¶3 During our review of the record, however, we discovered that one of the two jury instructions stated that the offense occurred on November 29, 2009, rather than 2010. Apparently reading directly from the written instruction, the judge likewise stated the wrong year when he read that instruction to the jury. However, it is abundantly clear from the rest of the record, including the verdict forms, the oral pronouncement of verdict, and the witnesses testimony, that the attorneys, the court, and the jury 1 We refer to the statute in effect at the time of Jenkins s offense. See 2010 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 59, § 2. 2 understood that the offense occurred in 2010. Therefore, any error that occurred was harmless. ¶4 In accordance with our obligation under Anders, we have reviewed the record for fundamental, reversible error and have found none. Therefore, Jenkins s conviction and sentence are affirmed. /s/ Garye L. Vásquez GARYE L. Và SQUEZ, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ Philip G. Espinosa PHILIP G. ESPINOSA, Judge /s/ Virginia C. Kelly VIRGINIA C. KELLY, Judge 3
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.
