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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

KYLE AUSTIN JOHNSON, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 24-0401
FILED 09-25-2025

Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County
No. S1300CR202301474
The Honorable Debra R. Phelan, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

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

Kyle Austin Johnson
In Propria Persona
 STATE v. JOHNSON
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Veronika Fabian delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge James B. Morse Jr. and Judge Anni Hill Foster joined.

F A B I A N, Judge:

¶1 Kyle Austin Johnson appeals his conviction for misconduct
involving weapons following a jury trial. The superior court sentenced him
to 4.5 years of imprisonment. On appeal, Johnson claims the superior court
did not have jurisdiction and was not competent to hear the case against
him. He also claims there was insufficient evidence to support his
conviction. Johnson has failed to develop his remaining arguments and
therefore this Court does not consider them on appeal. See Ariz. R. Crim. P.
31.10(a)(7); State v. Moody, 208 Ariz. 424, 452 ¶ 101 n. 9 (2004). For the
following reasons, this Court affirms.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 This Court “view[s] the facts in the light most favorable to
sustaining the jury’s verdict and resolve[s] all reasonable inferences against
[Johnson].” State v. Felix, 237 Ariz. 280, 283 ¶ 2 (App. 2015).

¶3 In December 2023, an officer of the Prescott Police
Department pulled over a vehicle in which Johnson was a passenger. The
officer ran a warrants check on Johnson and found Johnson had two
warrants for his arrest. When the officer approached Johnson to arrest him,
he asked Johnson whether he had a weapon. Johnson was initially silent
and then indicated he had a weapon in his waistband. The officer removed
a handgun from Johnson’s possession.

¶4 A grand jury indicted Johnson for misconduct involving
weapons. Specifically, because of Johnson’s prior criminal history, he was
prohibited from possessing a firearm. At trial, the arresting officer testified
Johnson had been convicted of prior felonies. An evidence technician for
the Yavapai County Sheriff's Office matched the fingerprints taken during
Johnson’s booking in December 2023 to prints from the prior felonies. A
jury convicted Johnson and the court sentenced him to 4.5 years of
imprisonment followed by community supervision. Johnson appealed.
This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Article VI, Section 9, of the Arizona

2
 STATE v. JOHNSON
Decision of the Court

Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and
13-4033(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

I. The Superior Court Had Jurisdiction Over Johnson and Was
Competent to Hear His Case.

¶5 Johnson argues that because he is an “American State
National,” not a U.S. citizen, the Yavapai County Superior Court did not
have jurisdiction over him. Johnson also disputes the court’s competency
or “right to carry out judicial proceedings.”

¶6 The states’ power to create and enforce criminal law derives
from their inherent sovereignty and is preserved by the Tenth Amendment
of the United States Constitution. See Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle, 579 U.S.
59, 69 (2016). The Arizona Constitution grants superior courts original
jurisdiction over “[c]riminal cases amounting to felony.” Ariz. Const. Art.
6, § 14(4). Arizona “has jurisdiction over an offense that a person commits
by his own conduct or the conduct of another for which such person is
legally accountable if: . . . [c]onduct constituting any element of the offense
or a result of such conduct occurs within this state.” A.R.S. § 13-108(A).
“Criminal prosecutions shall be tried in the county in which conduct
constituting any element of the offense or a result of such conduct occurred,
unless otherwise provided by law.” A.R.S. § 13-109(A). This criminal
jurisdiction extends to both citizens and noncitizens alike. See Oklahoma v.
Castro-Huerta, 597 U.S. 629, 635 and 651 (2022).

¶7 The arresting officer testified he pulled Johnson over and
discovered Johnson’s firearm within Yavapai County, Arizona. Johnson
does not dispute these underlying facts and therefore has not shown the
Yavapai Superior Court lacked jurisdiction over him. See Ariz. Const. Art.
6, § 14; A.R.S. §§ 13-108(A)(1), 109(A). Johnson’s argument—that his status
as an “American State National” exempts him from state or federal criminal
jurisdiction—has been rejected by every court to consider the argument.
See, e.g., United States v. Sterling, 738 F.3d 228, 233 n.1 (11th Cir. 2013) (noting
courts “have summarily rejected” as “frivolous” the legal theory of
individuals who “believe they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the
courts and who frequently deny that they are the defendants in the action”);
United States v. Benabe, 654 F.3d 753, 767 (7th Cir. 2011) (“Regardless of an
individual’s claimed status of descent, . . . that person is not beyond the
jurisdiction of the courts. These theories should be rejected summarily,
however they are presented.”).

3
 STATE v. JOHNSON
Decision of the Court

II. Sufficient Evidence Supports Johnson’s Conviction.

¶8 Johnson argues the State did not offer proper testimony that
he committed misconduct involving weapons because the prosecutor
testified without “firsthand knowledge” of the crime. He further asserts he
was not properly identified in the case and thus his conviction should be
reversed.

¶9 This Court reviews sufficiency of the evidence de novo. State v.
Pena, 235 Ariz. 277, 279 ¶ 5 (2014). In doing so, this Court reviews the
evidence presented at trial to determine if “substantial evidence exists to
support the jury verdict.” Id. “Substantial evidence is more than a ‘mere
scintilla’ and is that which reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to
support a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Hughes, 189
Ariz. 62, 73 (1997) (quoting State v. Mathers, 165 Ariz. 64, 67 (1990)).

¶10 A defendant commits misconduct involving weapons if they
possess “a deadly weapon or prohibited weapon if such person is a
prohibited possessor.” A.R.S. § 13-3102(A)(b)(4). For the purposes of the
statute, a firearm is a deadly weapon and a defendant who has been
convicted of a felony in any state is a prohibited possessor. A.R.S.
§§ 13-3101(A)(1), (A)(7)(b).

¶11 Although the prosecutor presented arguments to the jury,
Johnson does not support his claim that the prosecutor improperly testified
with references to the record. Instead, the record reflects the testimony of
witnesses with first-hand knowledge who testified to Johnson’s identity
and the crime that Johnson committed. The arresting officer testified that:
(1) he identified Johnson at the scene using Johnson’s state ID, (2) he found
a handgun in Johnson’s possession, and (3) the handgun was loaded and
capable of firing. At trial, the officer identified Johnson as the same person
he had pulled over and from whom he had confiscated the handgun. He
also identified Johnson on the booking forms and as the same person who
had been previously convicted of multiple felonies. Another witness
testified Johnson’s fingerprints from the December 2023 booking matched
the fingerprints recorded for the prior felony convictions.

¶12 All of this evidence taken together is sufficient to establish
beyond a reasonable doubt that Johnson was the same person pulled over
and booked by the arresting officer, the same person in possession of a
loaded firearm, and the same person convicted of prior felonies. Reasonable
jurors had sufficient evidence to find beyond a reasonable doubt that

4
 STATE v. JOHNSON
Decision of the Court

Johnson was a prohibited possessor in possession of a deadly weapon. See
Pena, 235 Ariz. 277, 279 ¶ 5.

CONCLUSION

¶13 For the foregoing reasons, Johnson’s conviction and sentence
are affirmed.

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

5