STATE OF ARIZONA v. JOHN ARTHUR MOSS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. JOHN ARTHUR MOSS, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2019-0090 Filed May 27, 2020 THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.19(e). Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County No. CR20162858001 The Honorable Casey F. McGinley, Judge The Honorable Kimberly H. Ortiz, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED COUNSEL Law Offices of Thomas Jacobs, Tucson By Thomas Jacobs Counsel for Appellant STATE v. MOSS Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Chief Judge Vásquez authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Staring and Judge Brearcliffe concurred. V Á S Q U E Z, Chief Judge: ¶1 After a jury trial in 2018, John Moss was convicted of possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited possessor. The trial court found Moss had two historical prior felony convictions and that he was on probation when he committed the charged offense, and sentenced him to the presumptive, enhanced ten-year prison term. Counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530 (App. 1999), asserting he has reviewed the record but found no issue that “is not frivolous” and asking this court to review the record for fundamental error. Moss has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶2 Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury’s verdict, see State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2 (App. 1999), the evidence at trial was sufficient to support the jury’s finding of guilt. See A.R.S. §§ 13-3101(A)(1), (7)(b), 13-3102(A)(4). The evidence establishes that on June 21, 2016, during a visit to Moss’s home, probation officers discovered a handgun and two full magazines of ammunition on his person. Moss, who was a convicted felon and on probation at that time, told an officer that he was a prohibited possessor and that he had not had his right to possess a firearm restored. He testified at trial that he had intentionally possessed a gun on the day of the incident. And sufficient evidence supports the trial court’s finding that Moss had two historical prior felony convictions, and he was on probation when he committed the underlying offense. See A.R.S. § 13-105(22)(c). His sentence is within the statutory limits and was lawfully imposed. See A.R.S. §§ 13-703(C), (J), 13-708(C). ¶3 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for reversible error and found none. Therefore, we affirm Moss’s conviction and sentence. 2
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.
