State v. Griggs
| Decision Date | 24 December 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. 1 CA-CR 18-0465,1 CA-CR 18-0465 |
| Parties | STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. JIM KENNETH GRIGGS, Appellant. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
The Honorable Marvin L. Davis, Judge Pro Tempore
AFFIRMED
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix
By Joseph T. Maziarz
Ortega & Ortega, PLLC, Phoenix
By Alane M. Ortega
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISIONJudge Maria Elena Cruz delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Jennifer B. Campbell and Judge James B. Morse Jr. joined.
¶1 This appeal is filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969). Counsel for Jim Kenneth Griggs has advised this court that counsel found no arguable questions of law and asks us to search the record for fundamental error. Griggs was convicted of: possession or use of dangerous drugs, a class 4 felony; misconduct involving weapons, a class 4 felony; possession or use of dangerous drugs on or near schools, a class 4 felony; and six counts of possession of drug paraphernalia, each a class 6 felony. Griggs has filed a supplemental brief in propria persona, which the court has considered. After reviewing the record, we affirm Griggs' convictions and sentences.
¶2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the judgment and resolve all reasonable inferences against Griggs. See State v. Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230, ¶ 2 (App. 1998).
¶3 Griggs lived in a residence located across the street from Palo Verde Middle School. Based on information from a confidential informant that Griggs was selling methamphetamine from his residence, law enforcement executed a controlled buy in May 2014.1 The confidential informant was sent to Griggs' residence and given money to purchase methamphetamine. Law enforcement observed the confidential informant entering Griggs' residence and exiting the residence after a short period of time. The confidential informant returned to law enforcement with a substance that field tested positive for methamphetamine.
¶4 Based on the information from the confidential informant, as well as the controlled buy, law enforcement obtained a search warrant to search Griggs' residence. Then, law enforcement executed a search warrantand searched Griggs' residence. Griggs was detained and interviewed by Detective Pluta during the search. Griggs allegedly told Detective Pluta that there was meth that he was going to use with a friend located in a toolbox. He also allegedly told Detective Pluta that he had injected methamphetamine for years. Law enforcement found a bag containing syringes, a loose crystalline powder inside the drawer of a red toolbox, a shelf with a mirror that had a loose crystalline substance on it, an operable digital scale, a couple of loose baggies, loose straws, and cut straws. Law enforcement also found a firearm. The loose crystalline powder tested positive for methamphetamine.
¶5 On February 19, 2016, Griggs was charged by indictment with the above-mentioned offenses. Griggs was offered a plea deal of three to three-and-a-half years, and he rejected the offer. The superior court bifurcated the trial and severed the misconduct involving weapons count. Griggs was represented by counsel prior to trial, though Griggs waived his right to counsel and represented himself at trial. Previous counsel remained as advisory counsel. Trial for the eight drug counts took place over five days beginning on August 29, 2017. The jury found Griggs guilty on all eight counts. Griggs took a plea offer for the remaining misconduct involving weapons count.
¶6 The superior court conducted the sentencing hearing in compliance with Griggs' constitutional rights and Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 26. The court considered aggravating circumstances of Griggs' criminal history, which included five prior felony convictions that were mostly drug-related. The court also considered mitigating circumstances, which included substance abuse issues, Griggs' family support, Griggs' age, and the fact his priors were previously admitted. With respect to the charge for possession or use of dangerous drugs, Griggs was sentenced to a slightly mitigated term of eight years. For the misconduct involving weapons charge, Griggs was sentenced to a slightly aggravated and stipulated term of five years. For possession or use of dangerous drugs on or near schools, Griggs was sentenced to a slightly mitigated term of eight years. For the six counts of possession of drug paraphernalia, Griggs was sentenced to the presumptive term of 3.75 years. Griggs was given 293 days of incarceration credit for each charge. The court found that concurrent sentences were appropriate for all counts.
¶7 Additionally, the court imposed a one-time probation assessment of $20, a one-time payment fee of $20, as well as $13, $15, and $2 assessments. For Griggs' convictions of possession of dangerous drugsand possession of dangerous drugs on or near schools, the court imposed a $1,000 fine with an 83% surcharge for a total amount of $1,830.
¶8 We review the entire record for reversible error. State v. Thompson, 229 Ariz. 43, 45 ¶ 3 (App. 2012). Counsel for Griggs has advised this Court that after a diligent search of the entire record, counsel has found no arguable question of law. However, in his supplemental brief, Griggs raises numerous issues that he asks the court address.
¶9 Griggs makes several arguments against the admission of a Google Map in his trial. Griggs claims that the court erred by allowing the State to present a Google Map rather than a drug free school zone map in order to secure his conviction under Arizona Revised Statues ("A.R.S.") section 13-3411, possession of drugs in a school zone. Section 13-3411(E) states that "[t]he drug free school zone map prepared pursuant to title 15 shall constitute an official record as to the location and boundaries of each drug free school zone," but it does not require that such a map be presented at trial in order to secure a conviction.
¶10 Under the statute, a "drug free school zone" is defined as "the area within three hundred feet of a school or its accompanying grounds." A.R.S. § 13-3411(I)(1). Prosecution presented a map that demonstrated Griggs' residence was within 300 feet of a school. Drugs were found in Griggs' residence. This is sufficient to secure his conviction under A.R.S. § 13-3411. Thus, the court did not err.
¶11 Griggs also argues that there are no official maps for the drug free school zones and that there are no "warning signs" posted at the entry of the school across from his residence indicating that the location was a school zone. Thus, he argues, he could not have knowingly violated the law. The statute states that "[i]t is unlawful for a person to . . . [p]ossess or use marijuana, peyote, dangerous drugs or narcotic drugs in a drug free school zone." A.R.S. § 13-411(A)(2). The statute does not require a specific state of mind on the part of the defendant. Here, Griggs was found to be in possession of dangerous drugs within a drug free school zone. Griggs did not need to know that he was in a drug free school zone in order to be convicted under this charge.
¶12 Griggs next argues that the court erred in including evidence obtained through the use of a confidential informant who was not disclosed prior to trial. Disclosure of "the existence or identity of an informant who will not be called to testify" is not required if "disclosure would result in substantial risk to the informant or to the informant's operational effectiveness" provided the "failure to disclose will not infringe on the defendant's constitutional rights." Ariz. R. Crim. P. 15.4(b)(2). A defendant seeking to overcome the State's policy of protecting an informant's identity bears the burden of demonstrating that the informant's testimony could bear on the merits of the case and that nondisclosure of the informant's identity would deprive the defendant of a fair trial. State v. Superior Court, 147 Ariz. 615, 617 (App. 1985).
¶13 Griggs has failed to allege, let alone demonstrate, how nondisclosure of the informant's identity bears on the merits of the case or how it has deprived him of a fair trial. The confidential informant was not present during the execution of the search warrant, was not present during the questioning of Griggs, and did not otherwise play a role in the investigation after the controlled buy. Moreover, as it relates to the drug offenses, Griggs was charged with possession or use, not sale. The State introduced evidence that upon service of the search warrant, law enforcement found methamphetamine, syringes, a scale, baggies, straws, and other paraphernalia. The State also introduced evidence of Griggs' admissions to methamphetamine use for years. The identity of the confidential informant did not bear on the merits of Griggs' case. Thus, the court did not err in refusing to allow for the disclosure of the identity of the confidential informant.
¶14 Griggs also argues that "Detective Pluta had stated he did not expect to find anything" and that it was clear "the evidence should be suppressed." Thus, "the officer knew or should have known that the defendant's constitutional rights were being violated." While Griggs' argument is not entirely clear, and it is also not clear as to what specific evidence Griggs is referring, the evidence obtained in execution of the search warrant was properly admitted at trial. Detective Pluta testified that he did not know the quantity of drugs that would be located at...
To continue reading
Request your trial