State v. Johnson

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

CYNTHIA M. JOHNSON, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 23-0372
FILED 01-23-2025

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2020-002214-001
The Honorable Joseph C. Kreamer, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

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

Stephen M. Johnson, Phoenix
Counsel for Appellant

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Jennifer B. Campbell delivered the decision of the Court,
in which Judge Kent E. Cattani and Judge Paul J. McMurdie joined.
 STATE v. JOHNSON
Decision of the Court

C A M P B E L L, Judge:

¶1 This appeal is presented to us pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969). Defense counsel
searched the record on appeal and advised us there are no meritorious
grounds for reversal. Defendant Cynthia Johnson was given the
opportunity to file a supplemental brief but did not do so. Our obligation is
to review the entire record for reversible error, State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530,
537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999), viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to
sustaining the convictions and resolving all reasonable inferences against
Johnson, State v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 293 (1989).

BACKGROUND

¶2 On August 11, 2019, Johnson was driving an SUV northbound
on Signal Butte Road in the second lane from the right. Her husband was in
the passenger seat and her son in the backseat. Johnson and her husband
began arguing, and Johnson abruptly hit the brakes and veered to the right.
The SUV swerved back and forth for a few seconds until it flipped over,
causing Johnson’s husband’s head to strike the curb, killing him instantly.
Johnson and her son were taken to the hospital but sustained only minor
injuries. When police questioned Johnson at the hospital, her responses
were delayed and her speech was slurred. Officers obtained a warrant to
test Johnson’s blood at the hospital. The test was positive for
methamphetamine and amphetamine.

¶3 In November 2020, Johnson was charged with manslaughter,
a class 2 felony, for her husband’s death, and endangerment, a class 6
felony, for endangering her son’s life. See A.R.S. §§ 13-1103(A)(1), (D);
13-1201. During trial, the State presented testimony from Johnson’s son,
who explained that Johnson and her husband were “having their usual
morning argument” when the SUV slowed down, started to fishtail, and
then went airborne. The State presented testimony from another driver who
saw the SUV swerve from side to side and then flip over. A vehicular crimes
unit detective testified that she investigated the accident and concluded the
cause was “improper steering input.” The parties stipulated that the
collision caused Johnson’s husband’s death.

¶4 The State introduced testimony from officers, describing their
conversations with Johnson at the scene of the accident and later at the
hospital. The State offered bodycam footage of those conversations,
showing Johnson slurring her words. The State also admitted the toxicology
report, confirming that both methamphetamine and amphetamine were in

2
 STATE v. JOHNSON
Decision of the Court

Johnson’s blood. The forensic toxicologist who reviewed that report
testified that these substances can negatively affect someone’s ability to
operate a vehicle. At the close of the State’s case, the superior court denied
Johnson’s motion for judgment of acquittal under Arizona Rule of Criminal
Procedure 20(a).

¶5 The jury found Johnson guilty on both counts. After an
aggravation phase, the jury found that both offenses were dangerous
because they involved the use of a dangerous instrument, a motor vehicle.
See A.R.S. § 13–105(12), (13). The court sentenced Johnson to a minimum
prison term of 7 years for manslaughter and a minimum term of 1.5 years
for endangerment to run concurrently, giving Johnson 1016 days of
presentence incarceration credit. See A.R.S. § 13–704(A). She timely
appealed.

DISCUSSION

¶6 After a thorough review of the record, we find no reversible
error. Clark, 196 Ariz. at 537, ¶ 30. The record reflects Johnson was present
and represented by counsel at all critical stages of the proceedings against
her. The evidence presented supports the convictions, and the sentences
imposed fall within the range permitted by law. As far as the record reveals,
these proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of
Criminal Procedure and Johnson’s constitutional and statutory rights.
Therefore, we affirm the convictions and sentences.

¶7 Unless defense counsel finds an issue that may be
appropriately submitted to the Arizona Supreme Court, her obligations are
fulfilled once she informs Johnson of the outcome of this appeal and her
future options. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584–85 (1984). Johnson
has 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if she wishes, with a
pro per petition for review. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.21(b)(2)(A). On the
court’s own motion, Johnson has 30 days from the date of this decision to
file a motion for reconsideration. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.20(c).

AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
FILED: JR

3