STATE v. JOHNSON

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: 08/28/2012 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: sls IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appellee, v. PHILIP HARVEY JOHNSON, Appellant. No. 1 CA-CR 11-0827 DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR 2011-006092-001 The Honorable Michael D. Jones, Judge (Retired) AFFIRMED Thomas C. Horne, Arizona Attorney General By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender By Peg Green, Deputy Public Defender Attorney for Appellant Phoenix T I M M E R, Presiding Judge ¶1 Philip Harvey Johnson appeals his conviction and resulting disposition after a jury convicted him of aggravated assault, a class four felony and domestic violence offense. Johnson s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000), Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999), advising this court that after a search of the entire record on appeal, he found no arguable grounds for reversal. This court granted Johnson an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, but he has not done so. jurisdiction Section Statutes (2001), 9, to of consider the ( A.R.S. ) and this Arizona sections -4033(A)(1) and appeal pursuant Constitution to We have Article 6, and Arizona Revised 12-120.21(A)(1) (2003), 13-4031 (3) (2001). For the following reasons, we affirm. DISCUSSION ¶2 We have read and considered counsel s brief and have searched the entire record for reversible error. State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 300, 451 P.2d 878, 881 (1969). We find none. The record shows that Johnson was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings and on appeal, and that the trial court afforded Johnson all his rights under the constitution, our statutes, and the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. disposition was within the range prescribed by law. Ariz. at 541, ¶ 50, 2 P.3d at 100. 2 The Clark, 196 CONCLUSION ¶3 After obligations the filing pertaining appeal have ended. to of this Johnson s decision, representation counsel s in this Counsel need do no more than inform Johnson of the status of the appeal and Johnson s future options, unless counsel s review reveals an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984). Johnson shall have thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with an in propria persona motion for reconsideration or petition for review. ¶4 Accordingly, we affirm Johnson s resulting disposition. /s/ Ann A. Scott Timmer Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ Patricia K. Norris, Judge /s/ Donn Kessler, Judge 3 conviction and

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.