State v. Fullen

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

JOHN HOYT FULLEN, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 24-0675
FILED 12-08-2025

Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County
No. P1300CR201400199
The Honorable Debra R. Phelan, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

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

Law Office of Carissa A. Jakobe PLLC, Mankato, MN
By Carissa A. Jakobe
Counsel for Appellant
 STATE v. FULLEN
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 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 John Hoyt
Fullen has advised this Court that counsel found no arguable questions of
law and asks this Court to search the record for reversible error. Fullen was
given an opportunity to file a supplemental brief; he has not done so. After
reviewing the record, this Court affirms the superior court’s order denying
Fullen’s petition for expungement of a prior conviction.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 In 2014, Fullen was arrested and indicted for possession and
transportation of marijuana for sale. In 2015, Fullen pleaded guilty to
possession of less than 2 pounds of marijuana for sale. In 2022, Fullen filed
a petition to expunge this offense from his records pursuant to
A.R.S. § 36-2862. The superior court denied that petition. Fullen appealed
and this Court vacated the order and remanded to the superior court to
make required findings of fact. State v. Fullen, No. 1 CA-CR 22-0407 (Ariz.
Ct. App. Apr. 18, 2024) (mem. decision). After an evidentiary hearing on
remand, the superior court denied his petition for expungement.

¶3 The superior court conducted the evidentiary hearing in
compliance with Fullen’s constitutional rights and Arizona Rule of
Criminal Procedure 36(c). At the hearing, a trooper for the Arizona
Department of Public Safety testified that during a traffic stop of Fullen, he
discovered an amount of marijuana in Fullen’s possession that appeared to
be more than 2.5 ounces. The trooper testified he had experience in the
visual estimation of quantities of marijuana. Another trooper for the
Department testified the weight of the marijuana collected from Fullen
during the stop, including the containers it was weighed in, was 7.68 ounces
and estimated the weight of the marijuana itself was 6.73 ounces. Fullen
testified he was delivering the marijuana to multiple medical marijuana
patients as an employee of an LLC and on behalf of his wife who was a
certified caregiver of medical marijuana.

2
 STATE v. FULLEN
Decision of the Court

¶4 The superior court concluded that, based on the testimony at
the hearing, the State had proven by clear and convincing evidence that
Fullen had possessed more than 2.5 ounces of marijuana, thus making him
ineligible for expungement under A.R.S. § 36-2862.

DISCUSSION

¶5 This Court reviews the denial of a petition for expungement
for an abuse of discretion. See State v. Hall, 234 Ariz. 374, 375 ¶ 3 (App. 2014).
Counsel for Fullen has advised this Court that after a diligent search of the
entire record, counsel has found no arguable questions of law. This Court
has read and considered counsel’s brief and fully reviewed the record for
reversible error, see State v. Thompson, 229 Ariz. 43, 45 ¶ 3 (App. 2012), and
finds none. All proceedings were conducted in compliance with the
Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. So far as the record reveals, counsel
represented Fullen at all stages of the proceedings, and the superior court’s
decision did not constitute an abuse of discretion. See Hall, 234 Ariz. at 375
¶ 3. This Court declines to order briefing and affirms the superior court’s
denial of Fullen’s petition for expungement.

¶6 Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel shall inform
Fullen of the status of the appeal and of his future options. See State v.
Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 585 (1984). Counsel has no further obligations
unless, upon review, counsel finds “an issue appropriate for submission to”
the Arizona Supreme Court. See id. at 584–85. This Court, of its own accord,
grants Fullen 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires,
with a motion for reconsideration. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.3(a) (“For good
cause, an appellate court . . . may suspend any provision of [Rule 31] . . .
and may order such proceedings as the court directs.”); Ariz. R. Crim. P.
31.20(c) (allowing 15 days to move for reconsideration). Fullen may petition
the Arizona Supreme Court for review no later than 30 days after the date
of this decision or, if Fullen files a timely motion for reconsideration, no
later than 15 days after that motion is decided. See Ariz. R. Crim. P.
31.21(b)(2)(A).

3
 STATE v. FULLEN
Decision of the Court

CONCLUSION

¶7 For the foregoing reasons, this Court affirms.

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

4