State v. Jumper

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

SKYLAR JAMES JUMPER, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 23-0010
FILED 9-19-2023

Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County
No. S8015CR202200406
The Honorable Douglas Camacho, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

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

Jill L. Evans Attorney at Law, Flagstaff
By Jill L. Evans
Counsel for Appellant
 STATE v. JUMPER
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge James B. Morse Jr. delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Judge Cynthia J. Bailey and Judge Brian Y. Furuya joined.

M O R S E, Judge:

¶1 Skylar James Jumper appeals his convictions and sentences
for two counts of sale of dangerous drugs (methamphetamine). After
searching the entire record, Jumper's defense counsel identified no
non-frivolous arguable question of law. In accordance with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), defense
counsel asks this Court to search the record for fundamental error. Jumper
was given an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona but
has not done so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm Jumper's
convictions and sentences.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 On two separate occasions in March 2022, Jumper sold
methamphetamine to a confidential informant for the Lake Havasu City
Police Department ("LHCPD"). The State charged Jumper with two counts
of sale of dangerous drugs (methamphetamine), each class 2 felonies, under
A.R.S. § 13-3407(A)(7). The superior court conducted a two-day jury trial,
during which the informant, LHCPD detectives, and a forensic scientist
testified.

¶3 The informant testified that he contacted Jumper to purchase
methamphetamine and completed two controlled purchases with Jumper
in March 2022. The informant further testified that each time he bought a
bag containing a quarter-ounce of a "white crystal substance" for one
hundred forty dollars. The detectives testified that they provided the
informant money and a recording device to execute and monitor the
purchases. After each purchase, the detectives searched and debriefed the
informant, and the informant gave them a "small plastic baggie" containing
a "white crystal-like substance." The forensic scientist testified she received
and analyzed two plastic bags, each containing a "crystalline powdery
material" that tested positive for methamphetamine. The State then
introduced audio and video recordings of the transactions and the bags
containing the substance.

2
 STATE v. JUMPER
Decision of the Court

¶4 The court denied Jumper's motion for judgment of acquittal
under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure ("Rule") 20, and the jury
convicted Jumper as charged. The court sentenced Jumper to mitigated
concurrent five-year terms of imprisonment for each count.

¶5 Jumper timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction under
A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and 13-4033(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶6 Our review of the record reveals no fundamental error. See
Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300. All proceedings were conducted in compliance with
the Rules, and the record reveals that Jumper was present at all critical
stages of the proceedings and represented by counsel. See Ariz. R. Crim. P.
6.1, 19.2. The State presented sufficient evidence from which the jury could
determine Jumper's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. West, 226
Ariz. 559, 562, ¶ 16 (2011). The jury was comprised of 12 members. See
A.R.S. § 21-102(A). The superior court properly instructed the jury on the
presumption of innocence, the burden of proof, and the elements of the
charged offenses. The court received a presentence report. Ariz. R. Crim.
P. 26.4. The court afforded Jumper an opportunity to speak at sentencing,
imposed sentences within the statutory limits, and stated on the record the
evidence and factors it considered in imposing the sentences. See A.R.S.
§§ 13-701, -3407(E); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 26.9–26.10.

CONCLUSION

¶7 We affirm Jumper's convictions and sentences. Upon the
filing of this decision, defense counsel shall inform Jumper 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. State v. Shattuck, 140
Ariz. 582, 584–85 (1984). Jumper shall have 30 days from the date of this
decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro per motion for reconsideration
or petition for review.

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

3