State v. Houston

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

JERMAINE LAMAR HOUSTON, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 25-0179
FILED 05-29-2026

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2023-158850-001
The Honorable Max Covil, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

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

Brown & Little PLLC, Chandler
By Matthew O. Brown
Counsel for Appellant

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Andrew M. Jacobs delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Judge Brian Y. Furuya and Judge James B. Morse Jr. joined.
STATE v. HOUSTON
Decision of the Court

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 Jermaine
Lamar Houston has advised this Court that counsel found no arguable
questions of law and has asked this Court to search the record for reversible
error. Houston was convicted of one count of disorderly conduct, one count
of possession of dangerous drugs for sale, and one count of possession of
narcotic drugs for sale. Houston was given an opportunity to file a
supplemental brief but has not done so. After reviewing the record, we
affirm Houston’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 Houston. See State
v. Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230 ¶ 2 (App. 1998).

A. Arrest

¶3 On December 28, 2023, E.L. was driving her husband’s truck
through her mother’s apartment complex looking for parking when she
accidentally backed into Houston’s vehicle. E.L.’s mother and four-year-
old daughter were also inside the truck. E.L. testified that after the collision,
Houston exited his vehicle and “grab[bed] the gun out of his holster” before
walking toward her truck with the handgun at his side. According to E.L.,
Houston approached the driver’s side window yelling and asking for
money because she had “messed up [his] car.” E.L. testified that while
Houston was speaking, he was “moving the gun the whole entire time,”
and that although the gun may have been pointed directly at her only “for
like a few seconds,” the barrel was “pointing everywhere honestly” as he
gestured and spoke. E.L. further testified that Houston said he was “going
to shoot the car up” while “trying to come up with a solution.” She stated
that Houston demanded “at least like around $500.”

¶4 E.L. testified about her encounter with Houston. His firearm
was a small black handgun, “probably like a Glock.” Neither she nor
anyone in her vehicle had a gun nor said anything threatening to Houston.
She immediately took responsibility for the accident and apologized when
Houston approached the truck. She felt “scared and concerned mostly,”
including concern “[f]or [her] safety” and the safety of her daughter who
remained in the truck during the encounter. She believed she needed to

2
STATE v. HOUSTON
Decision of the Court

“remain calm” because “you don’t know what could happen when there is
a gun pointed at you.”

¶5 Houston called 911 after the collision and told the dispatcher
that he was armed, though he said his gun was holstered. Phoenix Police
Department (“PPD”) Officers responded to the scene and contacted
Houston. Officer Tatge testified that when she asked Houston whether he
was armed, Houston lifted his shirt and showed her an empty holster
attached to his pants. Houston told the officer that after E.L. backed into
his vehicle, he “got out of his vehicle, pulled his gun out, but did not point
it at anyone.” Officer Tatge further testified that Houston later stated his
16-year-old son had taken the gun from him and put it away because
Houston was concerned about having a seizure. Houston did not specify
where the gun had been placed but mentioned that “the gun might be at
the apartment,” and “there might be a little meth in the apartment.”

¶6 Later that evening, officers executed a search warrant at
Houston’s apartment. Detectives testified they were searching for firearms
and their components connected to the incident. During the search of the
master bedroom, officers located multiple guns, including a handgun on a
bed with a loaded magazine inserted. Officers also recovered an
ammunition box from the bedroom containing “various drugs and
packaging components.” Inside the box, officers found several bags
containing colored pills and crystal substances, including five blue-colored
bags, four multicolored bags, eight bags containing crystal substances, and
two bags containing numerous smaller Ziploc baggies. Forensic scientists
from the crime laboratory tested the substances and confirmed the pills
contained fentanyl and the crystal substances contained
methamphetamine. At trial, testimony established that the seized narcotics
included approximately 6,000 fentanyl pills and approximately 120 grams
of methamphetamine.

B. Pre-Trial Proceedings

¶7 The State charged Houston with two counts of aggravated
assault, a class 3 dangerous felony; one count of disorderly conduct, a class
6 dangerous felony; one count of possession of dangerous drugs for sale, a
class 2 felony; and one count of possession of narcotic drugs for sale, a class
2 felony.

¶8 The State alleged multiple offenses not committed on the
same occasion, aggravating circumstances, and historical prior felony
convictions based on a separate pending felony matter. Specifically, the

3
STATE v. HOUSTON
Decision of the Court

State alleged that offenses charged in CR2024-101667-001 (the “2024
matter”) constituted multiple offenses not committed on the same occasion
for sentencing enhancement purposes under A.R.S. §§ 13-703 and 13-704.
The State also alleged aggravating circumstances including threatened
infliction of serious physical injury, use or threatened use of a handgun,
commission of the offenses for pecuniary gain, and other factors relevant to
Houston’s character or the nature of the offenses.

¶9 Houston appeared and was represented by counsel at his
arraignment, where the court entered not guilty pleas on his behalf and set
future pretrial proceedings. Houston was also present and represented at
subsequent comprehensive pretrial conferences, complex case management
conferences, trial management conferences, evidentiary hearings, jury
proceedings, and sentencing.

¶10 Houston also appeared and was represented during a Rule
17.4 settlement conference which included a Donald advisement, which is
an on-the-record determination that a defendant has been advised of any
proposed plea agreement, its terms and potential consequences. See State
v. Donald, 198 Ariz. 406, 413 ¶ 14 (App. 2000). During that proceeding, the
State outlined the charges and sentencing exposure in the present matter
and the 2024 matter, including the possibility of consecutive prison
sentences. The State offered plea agreements totaling 32.5 years’
imprisonment. After discussing the plea offer and sentencing exposure
with the court, Houston rejected the plea.

¶11 Before trial, the State filed a notice of intent to introduce text
messages recovered from a cellphone allegedly belonging to Houston,
which the State argued reflected drug-trafficking activity and were
admissible as direct, circumstantial, or intrinsic evidence of the charged
drug-sale offenses. In the alternative, the State argued the messages were
admissible under Arizona Rule of Evidence 404(b) to show knowledge,
intent, plan, motive, opportunity, and absence of mistake. Houston moved
to preclude the messages, arguing the State could not establish sufficient
foundation connecting the phone and messages to him, that the messages
constituted improper other-act or character evidence, and that any
probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair
prejudice under Rule 403. Houston further argued the messages were sent
a month before the charged offenses and did not establish a sufficient
connection between him and the drugs later discovered in the apartment,
particularly because other individuals were present at the residence before
officers executed the search warrant. After argument, the superior court
concluded that, if the State established adequate foundation and presented

4
STATE v. HOUSTON
Decision of the Court

competent testimony regarding the meaning of the messages at trial, the
messages would be admissible as “circumstantial and/or intrinsic
evidence” rather than Rule 404(b) evidence because they could directly
prove the charged offenses.

C. Trial

¶12 Trial began on September 30, 2024. Houston appeared and
was represented by counsel throughout the trial proceedings.

1. Counts 1-5

¶13 The State presented testimony from E.L., responding officers,
detectives who searched Houston’s apartment, forensic scientists, and
narcotics experts. E.L. testified to the collision and her encounter with
Houston, including how he approached her vehicle holding a gun and
demanded money after the accident. Responding officers testified to
Houston’s statements at the scene that: he had a gun but did not point it at
anyone; his son had taken the gun and; there might be methamphetamine
in the apartment. Officers also testified regarding Houston’s 911 call, his
empty holster, and the phone number associated with the call. The officers
who searched Houston’s apartment testified they found an ammunition
box containing fentanyl pills, methamphetamine, scales, and smaller
baggies commonly associated with narcotics sales. Another officer testified
that three juveniles he understood to be Houston’s children were removed
from the apartment during the search.

¶14 The State also presented testimony concerning cell-phone
extractions and text messages recovered from phones associated with
Houston. A narcotics detective testified regarding the meaning of drug-
related slang in the messages, explaining that many of the texts appeared
to concern fentanyl and methamphetamine transactions. The detective
further testified that the quantities recovered — about 6,000 fentanyl pills
and about 120 grams of methamphetamine — were inconsistent with
personal use and were instead consistent with possession for sale.

¶15 A forensic scientist with the PPD Crime Laboratory testified
that testing confirmed the crystal substances recovered from Houston’s
apartment contained methamphetamine, including 28.21 grams in one
tested bag and an additional 92.98 grams contained in seven other bags.
The forensic scientist also tested one pill recovered from the apartment and
confirmed that it contained fentanyl.

5
STATE v. HOUSTON
Decision of the Court

¶16 During trial, the court excused Juror 9 without objection
because of her chronic anxiety. Later in trial, another juror told the court
Jurors 4 and 8 might not have taken seriously the court’s admonition
against discussing the facts before deliberation. After consulting with the
parties, the court individually questioned both jurors, and each denied
discussing the case or violating the court’s admonition. Neither party
requested further inquiry or objected to the court’s handling of the matter.
The court also excused Juror 6 without objection after learning they were
unable to be in court timely after witnessing unrelated criminal activity.
The court completed the trial with 13 jurors, including one alternate.

¶17 After the State rested, Houston moved for judgment of
acquittal under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 20. The State conceded
the motion as to Count 1, and the court granted the motion on that count.
The court denied the motion as to the remaining counts, finding substantial
evidence supported submission of those charges to the jury. Houston did
not testify. The parties did not object to the final jury instructions. Juror 11
was selected as the alternate juror.

¶18 During deliberations, the jury asked whether intimidation
qualified as reasonable apprehension of immediate physical injury, and the
court instructed the jury to rely on the elements and definitions contained
in the jury instructions. The jury later advised the court it had reached an
impasse on Count 2 but had reached verdicts on the remaining counts. The
parties agreed not to provide an impasse instruction. The jury subsequently
found Houston guilty of Counts 3, 4, and 5, while leaving Count 2
unresolved. The State later dismissed Count 2.

2. Aggravation Phase

¶19 During the aggravation phase, the jury found that Count 3
involved the use, threatened use, or possession of a deadly weapon or
dangerous instrument, specifically a handgun. The jury also found
aggravating circumstances as to Counts 4 and 5.

D. Prior Conviction Stipulation and Sentencing

¶20 Before sentencing, Houston stipulated that he had been
convicted in the 2024 matter following a bench trial before a different judge.
Houston acknowledged he was convicted in that matter and that nobody
forced or threatened him into stipulating to the convictions.

¶21 The court conducted the sentencing hearing in compliance
with Houston’s constitutional rights and Arizona Rule of Criminal

6
STATE v. HOUSTON
Decision of the Court

Procedure 26. The court considered the presentence report, the parties’
sentencing memoranda, and aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
The State argued Houston was a professional drug dealer based on the text-
message evidence and requested aggravated consecutive sentences.
Defense counsel requested concurrent presumptive sentences and
emphasized Houston’s age, family support, and lack of significant criminal
history before 2023. Houston addressed the court and continued to
maintain his innocence regarding the narcotics offenses but stated he would
accept the sentence imposed by the court.

¶22 The court sentenced Houston to four years’ imprisonment for
Count 3, eleven calendar years’ imprisonment for Count 4, and ten years’
imprisonment for Count 5. The court ordered the sentences to run
concurrently with one another and concurrently with Houston’s sentence
in the 2024 matter. The court awarded 444 days of presentence
incarceration credit on Count 5 and 484 days on Counts 3 and 4. The court
also imposed fines based on the narcotics values presented at trial, statutory
assessments and fees, ordered forfeiture of weapons and related items, and
advised Houston of his appellate rights. Houston timely appealed.

DISCUSSION

¶23 We review the entire record for reversible error. State v.
Thompson, 229 Ariz. 43, 45 ¶ 3 (App. 2012). Houston’s counsel 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 Houston at all stages of the proceedings, and the
sentences imposed were within the statutory guidelines. We decline to
order briefing and affirm Houston’s convictions and sentences.

7
STATE v. HOUSTON
Decision of the Court

CONCLUSION

¶24 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm. Upon the filing of this
decision, defense counsel shall inform Houston 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). Houston shall have thirty days from the date of this decision
to proceed, if he desires, with a pro per motion for reconsideration or
petition for review.

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

8