State v. Williams

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

KENNETH EUGENE WILLIAMS, JR., Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 24-0022
FILED 03-20-2025

Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County
No. S8015CR202201074
The Honorable Douglas Camacho, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

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

Zachary Law Group PLC, Mesa
By Jessica Zachary
Counsel for Appellant
 STATE v. WILLIAMS
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Paul J. McMurdie delivered the Court’s decision, in which Presiding
Judge Anni Hill Foster and Judge Michael J. Brown joined.

M c M U R D I E, Judge:

¶1 Kenneth Eugene Williams Jr. appeals his conviction and
sentence for possession of dangerous drugs. Williams’s counsel filed a brief
per Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297
(1969), certifying that, after a diligent search of the record, she found no
arguable question of law that was not frivolous. Williams was allowed to
file a supplemental brief, but did not do so. Counsel asks this court to search
the record for arguable issues. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82-83 (1988);
State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999).

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 In 2022, a Bullhead City detective stopped a vehicle because
it did not have a functioning license plate light and failed to stop at a stop
sign. Williams was driving the vehicle. As the detective spoke with
Williams, he saw an open alcohol container in the vehicle. He asked
Williams to step out of the vehicle, and another detective arrested Williams.
Upon an inventory search of the vehicle, the detective found a bag he
believed to contain methamphetamine under a pack of cigarettes, which he
seized. Williams told the detective the bag did not belong to him but did
not deny that he possessed methamphetamine.

¶3 The State indicted Williams on two counts: possession of
dangerous drugs, a Class 4 felony, and possession of drug paraphernalia, a
Class 6 felony. The first trial led to a mistrial because of juror misconduct.
At the second trial, the State called several witnesses, including a forensic
scientist, who verified the substance found in Williams’s vehicle was
methamphetamine, and two detectives who testified about the traffic stop,
Williams’s arrest, and the evidence seized. Williams called a character
witness who testified that, in his opinion, Williams did not use drugs. At
the close of the State’s case-in-chief, Williams moved for a directed verdict
on both charges under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 20, which the
court denied.

2
 STATE v. WILLIAMS
Decision of the Court

¶4 The jury returned a guilty verdict for Count 1 but acquitted
Williams on Count 2. The court sentenced Williams to 2.25 years’
imprisonment and 3 months of consecutive community supervision with
33 days’ presentence incarceration credit. Williams appealed. We have
jurisdiction under Article 6, Section 9 of the Arizona Constitution and
Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and 13-4033(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶5 We have read and considered counsel’s brief and have
reviewed the record for any arguable issues. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300. We
find none.

¶6 Williams was present and represented by counsel at all stages
of the proceedings against him. The record reflects the superior court
afforded Williams all his constitutional and statutory rights and conducted
the proceedings following the criminal procedural rules. The court held
appropriate pretrial hearings, and the evidence presented at trial was
sufficient to support the verdict. Williams’s sentence falls within the range
prescribed by law. See A.R.S. § 13-105(22)(d); A.R.S. § 13-603(I); A.R.S.
§ 13-703(I); A.R.S. § 13-3407(A)(1). And the superior court gave Williams
appropriate presentence incarceration credit.

¶7 The State filed a motion in limine to prevent Williams from
admitting character evidence of non-drug use. The superior court granted
the State’s motion in part, prohibiting the defendant from presenting
evidence of specific instances of non-drug use. Generally, specific evidence
of prior acts is not admissible to prove a person’s character or to show action
in conformity with the previous conduct. Ariz. R. Evid. 405(a) (Specific
instances of character evidence are only admissible on cross-examination.).
But the evidence may be admissible if offered for another purpose, such as
motive or lack of motive. See Ariz. R. Evid. 105; cf. Ariz. R. Evid. 404(b)(2)
(Prior bad acts may be admissible to prove motive.). Because specific act
evidence is generally inadmissible on direct, the court did not abuse its
discretion in precluding evidence of prior acts of non-drug use. See State v.
Pina-Barajas, 244 Ariz. 106, 108, ¶ 4 (App. 2018) (We review the superior
court’s evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion.). Even assuming
error, Williams suffered no prejudice because the court allowed Williams
to present reputation and opinion evidence about his non-drug use. See
State v. Romero, 240 Ariz. 503, 510, ¶ 15 (App. 2016) (An error is harmless if
the party could still present the substance of his claim or defense with other
evidence.).

3
 STATE v. WILLIAMS
Decision of the Court

CONCLUSION

¶8 Williams’s conviction and sentence are affirmed. After the
filing of this decision, defense counsel’s obligations pertaining to Williams’s
representation in this appeal will end after informing Williams of the
outcome of this appeal and his future options, unless counsel’s review
reveals an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court
by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584–85 (1984).

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

4