State v. Houston

── State v. Houston ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: May 29, 2026 Category: General 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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 arm