State v. Crack

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

DONALD JOHN CRACK, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 23-0517
FILED 10-10-2024

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2022-133619-001
The Honorable Michael S. Mandell, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

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

The Susser Law Firm, PLLC, Chandler
By Adam Susser
Counsel for Appellant
 STATE v. CRACK
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Andrew M. Jacobs joined.

C R U Z, Judge:

¶1 This appeal was filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969). Appellant Donald
John Crack appeals his convictions and sentences for one count of
attempted aggravated assault, a class 6 felony, one count of resisting arrest,
a class 6 felony, and one count of disorderly conduct, a class 1
misdemeanor. Counsel for Crack has advised this court that counsel found
no arguable questions of law and asks us to search the record for
fundamental error. Crack has been afforded an opportunity to file a
supplemental brief in propria persona and has not done so. After reviewing
the record, we affirm Crack’s convictions and sentences.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 We view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining
the verdict, resolving all reasonable inferences against Crack. See State v.
Rienhardt, 190 Ariz. 579, 588-89 (1997). One evening in September 2022,
N.K. heard loud noises that sounded like breaking glass coming from his
neighbor B.N.’s apartment. B.N. was Crack’s mother and he was visiting
her that night. N.K. left his apartment and saw B.N. outside. She was upset
and told N.K. to call the police. Mesa police arrived shortly thereafter, after
9-1-1 operators received “an unknown trouble call with sounds of breaking
glass and someone yelling in the background.”

¶3 When the officers arrived, B.N. was extremely distraught.
She told them that she had glass on the bottom of her feet from glass Crack
had broken inside the apartment. The police asked Crack to come outside
multiple times, but he refused to do so. Four officers then entered the
apartment and tried to place Crack in handcuffs. Crack refused to comply
with police commands that he get on the ground and put his hands behind
his back. It took all four officers to restrain Crack and handcuff him as he
actively struggled and “pull[ed] away keeping his arms engaged as well as
his fists.” The officers struck Crack below the neck multiple times to
subdue him. After he was handcuffed, Crack attempted to spit in Officer

2
 STATE v. CRACK
Decision of the Court

Klepp’s face, but Officer Klepp grabbed Crack’s head and deflected the
saliva to the ground. Crack continued to spit at Officer Klepp, even after
another officer placed a spit mask on him.

¶4 A grand jury indicted Crack for one count of attempted
aggravated assault, a class 6 felony (Officer Klepp), one count of resisting
arrest, a class 6 felony, and one count of disorderly conduct, a class 1
misdemeanor. Crack represented himself at trial with the assistance of
advisory counsel after the superior court found he knowingly, intelligently,
and voluntarily waived his right to representation. At the close of the
State’s case, Crack moved for judgment of acquittal under Arizona Rule of
Criminal Procedure 20. The superior court denied the motion. The jury
convicted Crack as charged.

¶5 The superior court sentenced Crack as a category three
repetitive offender to presumptive terms of 3.75 years in prison for counts
1 and 2, to be served concurrently, and gave him credit for 149 days of
presentence incarceration. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. (“A.R.S.”) section 13-703(J).
The court sentenced Crack to 120 days in jail, time served, for count 3.

¶6 Crack appealed after the superior court granted his request to
file a delayed notice of appeal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona
Constitution Article 6, Section 9, and A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A), 13-4031, and
13-4033(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶7 We review Crack’s convictions and sentences for
fundamental error. See State v. Flores, 227 Ariz. 509, 512, ¶ 12 (App. 2011).
Counsel for Crack has advised this court that after a diligent search of the
record counsel has found no arguable question of law.

¶8 We have read and considered counsel’s brief and have fully
reviewed the record for reversible error and find none. See Leon, 104 Ariz.
at 300. All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the
Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. Sufficient evidence supported the
jury’s verdict, and the sentences imposed were within the statutory
guidelines. Accordingly, we affirm Crack’s convictions and sentences.

¶9 Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel shall inform
Crack of the status of the appeal and his future options. 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). Crack will have thirty days

3
 STATE v. CRACK
Decision of the Court

from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro per motion
for reconsideration or petition for review.

CONCLUSION

¶10 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Crack’s convictions and
sentences.

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

4