State v. Lawrence

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

CHRISTOPHER EARL LAWRENCE, Appellant

No. 1 CA-CR 24-0446
FILED 11-28-2025

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2023-129191-001
The Honorable Michael Mandell, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Ortega & Ortega, PLLC
By Alane M. Ortega
Counsel for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Alice Jones
Counsel for Appellee
 STATE v. LAWRENCE
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Andrew M. Jacobs delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge D. Steven Williams and Judge Michael S. Catlett joined.

J A C O B S, Judge:

¶1 This appeal is filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969). Counsel for
Christopher Earl Lawrence has advised this court that counsel found no
arguable questions of law and asks us to search the record for reversible
error. Lawrence was convicted of two counts of misconduct involving
weapons, one count of possession or use of narcotic drugs, and one count
of possession or use of drug paraphernalia. Lawrence was given an
opportunity to file a supplemental brief, but has not done so. After
reviewing the record, we affirm Lawrence’s convictions and sentences.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the
convictions and resolve all reasonable inferences against Lawrence. See
State v. Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230, ¶ 2 (App. 1998).

A. Arrest

¶3 On June 30, 2023, Lawrence was stopped by Phoenix Police
officers at a Circle K near 35th Avenue and Deer Valley Road for driving a
truck with fictitious plates. One of the officers arrested Lawrence and
conducted a search incident to arrest. During the search, the officer found
a glass pipe, two metal pipes, and a blue pill stamped with “M30” in
Lawrence’s pockets. After placing Lawrence in custody, the arresting
officers looked in the truck to ensure there were no other occupants and
observed multiple firearms between the driver’s seat and the front
passenger seat. After confirming the plates were fictitious, the officers
conducted a probable cause search of the truck and removed two rifles and
multiple magazines.

B. Pre-Trial

¶4 Lawrence was charged with two counts of misconduct
involving weapons due to his status as a prohibited possessor, as well as
one count of possession or use of narcotic drugs and one count of

2
 STATE v. LAWRENCE
Decision of the Court

possession or use of drug paraphernalia. On July 17, 2023, Lawrence
appeared for his arraignment and pled not guilty to all charges. The State
extended multiple plea offers to Lawrence, which he did not accept.
Lawrence failed to appear for the final trial management conference on
October 16, 2023, and a bench warrant was issued for his arrest. Lawrence
appeared for a subsequent final trial management conference on March 12,
2024, where he officially rejected the State’s plea offer and a proper Donald
advisement was given. State v. Donald, 198 Ariz. 406 (App. 2000).

¶5 On April 23, 2024, the superior court scheduled Lawrence for
a bifurcated trial with twelve jurors, with trial for Counts 1 and 2 to begin
on May 13, 2024, and trial for Counts 3 and 4 to begin on May 21, 2024. At
the end of the trial setting hearing, the superior court warned Lawrence that
if he “fail[ed] to appear, a bench warrant would issue, and the State could
try [him] in [his] absence.”

C. Trial

1. Counts 1 and 2 – Misconduct Involving Weapons

¶6 The trial for Counts 1 and 2, misconduct involving weapons,
began on May 13, 2024. Lawrence did not appear for any of his trial, and
the court proceeded with trial in his absence.

¶7 The State presented the testimony of Officer Coombs, one of
the officers who initiated the traffic stop of Lawrence. Officer Coombs
testified that he was on patrol with Officer McCarthy near 35th Avenue and
Deer Valley Road on June 30, 2023 when Officer McCarthy ran the license
plate of a black truck that was parked in a residential driveway and
discovered its plates were fictitious. The officers surveilled the truck for a
short period of time, during which the truck reversed out of the driveway
and drove north on 35th Avenue to a nearby Circle K. The officers followed
the truck to Circle K and arrested the driver of the vehicle. The officers then
observed the vehicle from the outside to ensure there were no other
occupants and noticed multiple firearms and magazines between the
driver’s seat and front passenger seat. The officers confirmed the license
plate was fictitious by running the truck’s VIN and then conducted a
probable cause search of the vehicle to remove the firearms.

¶8 Officer Dunning and Officer Holten were called to assist in
the removal of the firearms. Officer Dunning removed an “AR-style rifle
that was chambered,” and Officer Von Holten removed a “Ruger 10/22
rifle” with a banana magazine in it. After the firearms were unloaded, they

3
 STATE v. LAWRENCE
Decision of the Court

were given to Officer Coombs for custody and transported to the Cactus
Park precinct.

¶9 A police assistant with the Phoenix Police Department
testified that both firearms were tested and successfully test fired. An
investigator with the Phoenix Police Department testified that he
fingerprinted Lawrence on April 23, 2024. A forensic scientist for the City
of Phoenix testified that she compared the fingerprints collected by the
investigator to fingerprint impressions from an automated summary report
from the Arizona Department of Corrections. The forensic scientiest
testified the fingerprints were a match.

¶10 Following the State’s presentation of evidence, Lawrence’s
counsel moved for a judgment of acquittal under Arizona Rule of Criminal
Procedure 20, arguing there was not substantial evidence to warrant a
conviction. The superior court denied the motion, finding there was
substantial evidence to warrant a conviction. The case was submitted to the
jury, and the jury returned a verdict of guilty on both counts of misconduct
involving weapons.

2. Counts 3 and 4 – Possession or Use of Narcotic Drugs
and Possession or Use of Drug Paraphernalia

¶11 The trial for Counts 3 and 4, possession or use of narcotic
drugs and possession or use of drug paraphernalia, began on May 29, 2024.
Lawrence did not appear for any of his trial, and the court proceeded with
trial in his absence.

¶12 Officer McCarthy testified that he came into contact with
Lawrence during a traffic stop at a Circle K. After lawfully stopping and
arresting Lawrence, Officer McCarthy conducted a search incident to arrest
of Lawrence. During his search, Officer McCarthy found a glass pipe in one
of Lawrence’s pockets, and found a blue pill stamped with “M30” and two
metal pipes in his other pocket. Officer McCarthy testified that based on
his training and experience, the glass and metal pipes are usually used to
smoke or inhale fumes coming from drugs, and that the blue pill was a
counterfeit pill laced with fentanyl. The items were placed in a property
bag and impounded by Officer Coombs.

¶13 A forensic scientist from the Phoenix Police Department,
testified that she tested the “M30” pill found on Lawrence and confirmed it
contained fentanyl. After the scientist’s testimony, Lawrence’s counsel
moved for a judgment of acquittal under Arizona Rule of Criminal
Procedure 20, arguing there was not substantial evidence to warrant a

4
 STATE v. LAWRENCE
Decision of the Court

conviction. The superior court denied the motion, finding there was
substantial evidence. The case was submitted to the jury, and the jury
returned a verdict of guilty on both counts.

D. Sentencing

¶14 The superior court conducted the sentencing hearing in
compliance with Lawrence’s constitutional rights and Arizona Rule of
Criminal Procedure 26. The court found the following mitigating factors:
(1) Lawrence will be on probation after he is released from custody; (2)
substance abuse issues affecting Lawrence’s judgment; (3) more than 20
years had elapsed since Lawrence’s prior convictions; and (4) the vehicle
Lawrence was driving was not his own, the State’s evidence didn’t
demonstrate that Lawrence knew the weapons were in the vehicle, and
even if he did know they were there, the weapons weren’t being used in
any manner. As to Counts 1 and 2, Lawrence was sentenced to a mitigated
term of six years imprisonment for each count to begin on August 2, 2024,
with a presentence credit of 61 days. Counts 1 and 2 were to be served
concurrently. As to Counts 3 and 4, Lawrence was sentenced to three years
of supervised probation. Counts 3 and 4 were also to be served
concurrently. Lawrence’s sentence requires him to complete substance
abuse treatment once on probation. The court also assessed Lawrence: (1)
a $13 criminal penalty assessment; (2) $2 for victim’s rights enforcement; (3)
$9 for victim’s rights compensation; and (4) a reduced probation services
fee of $35.

DISCUSSION

¶15 We review the entire record for reversible error. State v.
Thompson, 229 Ariz. 43, 45 ¶ 3 (App. 2012). Counsel for Lawrence has
advised this court that after a diligent search of the entire record, counsel
found no arguable questions of law. We have read and considered
counsel’s brief and fully reviewed the record for reversible error, see Leon,
104 Ariz. at 300, and find none. All of the proceedings were conducted in
compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. So far as the
record reveals, counsel represented Lawrence at all stages of the
proceedings, and the sentences imposed were within the statutory
guidelines. We decline to order briefing and affirm Lawrence’s convictions
and sentences.

¶16 We next analyze two potential issues in this matter, and
explain why neither of them constitutes reversible error.

5
 STATE v. LAWRENCE
Decision of the Court

¶17 First, both trials proceeded in Lawrence’s absence, but the
superior court’s decision to proceed in his absence was not error. Lawrence
waived his right to be present because he “had actual notice of the date and
time of the proceeding, notice of the right to be present, and notice that the
proceeding would go forward in [his] absence.” Ariz. R. Crim. P. 9.1.

¶18 Second, a presentence report was not prepared in this case.
The superior court will typically order preparation of the presentence
report after the verdicts are read on the last day of trial, but it is possible the
court did not do so here because Lawrence was tried in absentia.
Regardless, the superior court must order a presentence report in every case
with a sentence of more than one year in which it has discretion over the
penalty, and it was error for the superior court not to do so here. Ariz. R.
Crim. P. 26.4(a). This error is harmless, though, because the superior court
sentenced Lawrence to the lowest possible sentence available under the
law. See State v. Howard, --- Ariz. ---, 573 P.3d 1142, 1152 ¶ 37 (App. 2025)
(For an error to be harmless, it must be true “beyond a reasonable doubt
that the error did not contribute to or affect the verdict or sentence.”)
(cleaned up). Moreover, Lawrence did not object to this error below, and
“a party’s failure to make a timely objection to a sentencing procedure
waives that point for appeal.” State v. Clabourne, 142 Ariz. 335, 346 (1984).

6
 STATE v. LAWRENCE
Decision of the Court

CONCLUSION

¶19 We affirm. Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel
shall inform Lawrence of the status of the appeal and of 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). The court, of
its own accord, grants Lawrence thirty days from the date of this decision
to proceed, if he desires, with a pro per motion for reconsideration. See Ariz.
R. Crim. P. 31.3(a) (appellate court may for good cause suspend any
provision of Rule 31 and order proceedings as it directs); Ariz. R. Crim. P.
31.20(c) (allowing fifteen days to move for reconsideration). Lawrence may
petition the Arizona Supreme Court for review no later than thirty days
after the date of this decision or, if Lawrence files a timely motion for
reconsideration, no later than fifteen days after the motion is decided. See
Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.21(b)(2)(A).

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

7