State v. Campbell

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

JASON ALLEN CAMPBELL, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 23-0354
FILED 03-13-2025

Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County
No. S8015CR202100262
The Honorable Douglas Camacho, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

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

Kenneth Countryman, Attorney at Law, Tempe
By Kenneth Countryman
Counsel for Appellant
 STATE v. CAMPBELL
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Chief Judge David B. Gass delivered the decision of the court, in which
Presiding Judge Brian Y. Furuya and Vice Chief Judge Randall M. Howe
joined.

G A S S, Chief Judge:

¶1 Jason Allen Campbell filed this appeal in accordance with
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297
(1969). Campbell’s counsel certified he found no arguable, non-frivolous
question of law. Counsel thus believes the appeal has no merit. See State v.
Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537–38 ¶¶ 30–31 (App. 1999). Counsel asks this court
to review the record for any arguable issues. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,
80 (1988); State v. Thompson, 229 Ariz. 43, 45 ¶ 3 (App. 2012). The court
allowed Campbell to file a supplemental brief in propria persona. He has not.
Campbell’s conviction and sentence are affirmed.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 The court views the facts in the light most favorable to
sustaining the jury’s verdict and resolves all reasonable inferences against
Campbell. See State v. Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230 ¶ 2 (App. 1998).

¶3 Campbell went to a man’s house late at night. The man’s
granddaughter answered the door and told Campbell her grandfather was
sleeping. On her way to get her grandfather, she saw the victim coming
towards the door from his trailer. The victim lived in one of the two trailers
on the grandfather’s property. The grandfather’s daughter lived in the
other.

¶4 While waiting, Campbell paced around the front porch and
the driveway, talking to himself. The daughter saw the victim stand close
to Campbell. Campbell yelled at the victim and said, “back off or I’ll shoot.”
The daughter did not see a muzzle flash, but she saw Campbell raise his
arm and pull the trigger on a gun. The daughter then saw the victim
stumble back into the grandfather’s house and Campbell take off in his
vehicle. The victim managed to call 911. The daughter put pressure on the
victim’s wound. And when the grandfather came to his front door, he asked
the victim who shot him. The victim identified Campbell. The bullet hit the

2
 STATE v. CAMPBELL
Decision of the Court

victim’s stomach, liver, and right kidney, causing severe injuries. Four days
later, the victim died from those injuries.

¶5 Several hours after the shooting, the police searched for
Campbell. About a mile away, they saw someone, who turned out to be
Campbell, run to an alleyway. The police gave chase. During the chase,
Campbell fell but got up and continued running. When the police
apprehended Campbell, he did not have a gun. In response to questioning,
Campbell pointed to where he fell and said he dropped or threw the gun
there. The police found a gun in the alleyway. The police took Campbell to
a police car and read him his Miranda rights off a department-issued card.
See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). After he was read his rights,
Campbell made statements about how “they killed [his] babies.”

¶6 A grand jury indicted Campbell for one count of
second-degree murder and one count of misconduct involving weapons.
See A.R.S. §§ 13-1104.A.3, -3102.A.4. The superior court severed the two
counts.

¶7 On the second day of trial, the superior court recessed to work
on the proposed jury instructions and let parties know after the recess, they
would go over the proposed jury instructions. After recess, the superior
court acknowledged defendant was returned to jail and asked defense
counsel if they are willing to go forward without the presence of the client.
Defense counsel said he asked the deputy whether Campbell wanted to
present and was told Campbell said “do I need to go back in?” Defense
counsel mentioned to the superior court he did not have a chance to talk to
Campbell, but “settling jury instructions has nothing to do with the case-in-
chief, so I’ll waive his appearance for purposes of just settling jury
instructions.” The superior court allowed the waiver.

¶8 The jury convicted Campbell of 1 count of the lesser-included
offense of manslaughter, a class 2 felony. See A.R.S. §§ 13-1103.A.1, .D. The
jury also found it was a dangerous offense because it involved the use of a
firearm. See A.R.S. § 13-105.13, .15, .19. The superior court found the
statutory aggravating circumstance of a prior felony conviction and relied
on it to impose the maximum 21-year sentence. See A.R.S. §§ 13-701.C, .D.11,
13-704.A. The superior court imposed a 21-month term of community
supervision and credited Campbell with 882 days presentence
incarceration. On the State’s motion, the superior court dismissed without
prejudice the misconduct involving weapons count.

3
 STATE v. CAMPBELL
Decision of the Court

¶9 The court has jurisdiction over Campbell’s timely appeal
under Article VI, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and A.R.S.
§§ 13-4031 and -4033.A.1.

DISCUSSION

¶10 This court considered counsel’s brief and thoroughly
reviewed the record for any arguable, non-frivolous questions of law but
identified none. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300; Clark, 196 Ariz. at 537 ¶ 30.

¶11 All proceedings complied with the Arizona Rules of Criminal
Procedure. Campbell had the opportunity to be present for and was
represented by counsel at all critical stages of the proceedings. See State v.
Bohn, 116 Ariz. 500, 503 (1977); State v. Conner, 163 Ariz. 97, 104 (1990).
Though settling jury instructions is a critical stage, the superior court did
not err when it allowed defense counsel to waive Campbell’s presence
unilaterally for that limited purpose. See State v. Teran, 253 Ariz. 165, 173
¶ 28 (App. 2022) (recognizing settling jury instructions is a “critical, trial-
related issue[].”). The superior court reasonably relied on defense counsel’s
explicit waiver. See State v. Rose, 231 Ariz. 500, 504 ¶ 9 (2013). And Campbell
voluntarily absented himself from those proceedings when he returned to
jail after asking the deputy if he needed to go back in. See id.

¶12 The superior court properly empaneled eight jurors and one
alternate. See A.R.S. § 21-102.B. The record shows no evidence of jury
misconduct. The superior court properly instructed the jury on the elements
of both the charged and the lesser-included offenses, the State’s burden of
proof, and Campbell’s presumed innocence. The superior court held
appropriate pretrial hearings, and the evidence presented at trial was
sufficient to support the jury’s unanimous verdict.

¶13 Campbell had a chance to speak at sentencing. See Ariz. R.
Crim. P. 26.9 (requiring defendant’s presence at sentencing), 26.10(c)(1)
(allowing defendant to speak). Campbell’s sentence falls within the range
prescribed by law, with proper credit given for presentence incarceration.

CONCLUSION

¶14 We affirm Campbell’s conviction and sentence.

¶15 After the filing of this decision, defense counsel’s obligations
pertaining to Campbell’s representation in this appeal will end. Unless
counsel finds an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme
Court in a petition for review, defense counsel need only inform Campbell

4
 STATE v. CAMPBELL
Decision of the Court

of the outcome of this appeal and his future options. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584–85 (1984).

¶16 The court, of its own accord, grants Campbell 30 days from
the date of this decision to file an in propria persona motion for
reconsideration. But see Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.20 (allowing 15 days to file a
motion for reconsideration). Campbell has 30 days from the date of this
decision to proceed, if he wishes, with an in propria persona petition for
review or, if Campbell files a timely in propria persona motion for
reconsideration, he has 15 days after the motion is decided. See Ariz. R.
Crim. P. 31.21.

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

5