State v. Strover

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

IN THE
ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee,

v.

J’SSAN STROVER, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 23-0476
FILED 03-11-2025

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2021-001756-001
The Honorable Geoffrey H. Fish, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Alice Jones
Counsel for Appellee

Zhivago Law, Phoenix
By Kerrie M. Droban Zhivago
Counsel for Appellant
 STATE v. STROVER
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Cynthia J. Bailey delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Vice Chief Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge Andrew M. Jacobs
joined.

B A I L E Y, Judge:

¶1 J’ssan Carlos Strover appeals his convictions and sentences
for armed robbery, kidnapping, and burglary. Counsel for Strover has filed
this appeal in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and
State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), advising this court that counsel has found
no errors or arguable questions of law and asking us to search the record
for fundamental, reversible error. See State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 567-
69, ¶¶ 19-26 (2005); State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999) (stating
that this court reviews the entire record for reversible error). Strover was
given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona; he has
not done so. After reviewing the record, we affirm Strover’s convictions
and sentences.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the
convictions and resolve all reasonable inferences against Strover. See State
v. Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230, ¶ 2 (App. 1998).

¶3 A grand jury indicted Strover on five counts for acts that
occurred on December 1, 2020: Counts One and Two, armed robbery, each
a class 2 dangerous felony; Counts Three and Four, kidnapping, each a class
2 dangerous felony; and Count Five, burglary in the first degree, a class 3
dangerous felony. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. (“A.R.S.”) §§ 13-1904, -1304, -1508.

¶4 The evidence presented at trial included the following:
Strover entered a jewelry store as two store employees were closing the
store for the night. At gunpoint, Strover ordered the two employees back
into the store and directed them to give him Rolex watches, gold necklaces,
and other jewelry that was either on display or in the store’s safe.

¶5 Both victims testified that Strover pointed his gun at them and
ordered them into the store because he was not “messing around.”
Although Strover was wearing a COVID-19 style mask, one of the victims

2
 STATE v. STROVER
Decision of the Court

was able to identify him from the “few little stubbly bumps on the tops of
his cheeks.” Surveillance footage captured Strover running out the front
door of the store carrying a heavy bag full of jewelry. A police officer
testified he discovered an abandoned vehicle in Brenda, Arizona; the
vehicle contained a black trash bag full of boxes for jewelry displays,
binoculars, a clawhammer, and a box and bill of sale for a Glock handgun.
The bill of sale contained Strover’s name and driver’s license number along
with his Phoenix home address. The officer also found three diamond rings
on the ground near the vehicle. Crime scene investigators testified they
lifted fingerprints from the trash bag and Glock case, both matching
Strover’s fingerprints.

¶6 Several jewelers also testified they had purchased either gold,
a Rolex, or diamond rings from Strover. Each jewelry item Strover sold
contained a model and serial number that matched the model and serial
numbers of the items taken during the robbery. And as part of each
transaction, the jewelers required Strover to present his driver’s license and
provide his signature.

¶7 The jury found Strover guilty as charged on all counts. The
superior court sentenced Strover to the presumptive 15.75 years on Counts
One and Two; the presumptive 15.75 years on Counts Three and Four; and
the presumptive 11.25 years for Count Five. See A.R.S. § 13-704(D).

¶8 The court further ordered that Counts One, Three, and Five
run concurrently with one another; Counts Two and Four run concurrently
with one another; Counts Two and Four run consecutive to Counts One,
Three, and Five; and Counts One, Three, and Five run consecutive to
Strover’s sentence in a separate criminal case.1 The court credited Strover
for 876 days of presentence incarceration on Counts One, Three, and Five.
Strover was also ordered to pay $268,960.25 in restitution as to Count Five
and fines and fees in the amount of $4,463.71.

¶9 We have jurisdiction over Strover’s timely appeal under
Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. §§ 12-
120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and 13-4033(A).

DISCUSSION

¶10 After reviewing counsel’s brief, the court has searched the
entire record for reversible error. See Clark, 196 Ariz. at 537, ¶ 30. The

1 See State v. Strover, 1 CA-CR 22-0537, 2023 WL 7526072 (Ariz. App. Nov.

14, 2023) (mem. decision).

3
 STATE v. STROVER
Decision of the Court

record reveals no reversible error. Strover was represented by counsel at
all stages of the proceedings, and counsel was present at all critical
stages. All proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona
Rules of Criminal Procedure. The convictions are supported by substantial
evidence. The court permitted Strover to speak at sentencing, but he
voluntarily absented himself from the proceeding by “assaulting” the
courtroom deputies as they attempted to guide him to the courtroom. The
court imposed sentences within the statutory limits.

¶11 Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel shall inform
Strover of the status of his appeal and of his future options. Defense
counsel has no further obligations unless, upon review, counsel finds an
issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition
for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85 (1984). Strover will
have 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a
pro per motion for reconsideration or petition for review.

CONCLUSION

¶12 We affirm Strover’s convictions and sentences.

MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court
FILED: JR

4