State v. Miles ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                      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    UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.
    AUSTIN ALLEN MILES, Appellant.
    No. 1 CA-CR 21-0280
    FILED 2-22-2022
    Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County
    No. V1300CR201980460
    The Honorable Michael R. Bluff, Judge
    AFFIRMED
    COUNSEL
    Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Tucson
    By Alexander M. Taber
    Counsel for Appellee
    Law Office of Nicole Countryman, Phoenix
    By Nicole Countryman
    Counsel for Appellant
    STATE v. MILES
    Decision of the Court
    MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Judge Peter B. Swann delivered the decision of the court, in which Presiding
    Judge Cynthia J. Bailey and Judge D. Steven Williams joined.
    S W A N N, Judge:
    ¶1            A jury convicted Austin Miles of failure to register as a sex
    offender. Miles appeals the superior court’s denial of his motion for a
    judgment of acquittal, arguing there was insufficient evidence to support
    the conviction. For the following reasons, we affirm.
    FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
    ¶2           In 2011, Miles was convicted under Article 134 of the Uniform
    Code of Military Justice for possession of child pornography while serving
    in the United States Navy. He was sentenced to a three-year term of
    imprisonment. After his release in 2013, Miles was required to register as a
    sex offender. In November 2013, Miles registered as a sex offender in
    California where he resided.
    ¶3            In February 2015, Miles moved to Flagstaff, Arizona. In
    March 2015, he registered as a sex offender in Coconino County. When he
    registered, he initialed an acknowledgment that he was required to register
    within 10 days after entering and remaining in any county of the state
    pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-3821(A). By May 2015, Miles had vacated his
    apartment in Flagstaff, but did not register a new address within the county
    or elsewhere.
    ¶4             After an investigation by the Flagstaff Police Department and
    Yavapai County Sherriff’s Office, they believed Miles was residing with his
    girlfriend at an RV park in Yavapai County. In November 2015, a detective
    with the Yavapai County Sherriff’s Office observed Miles leave his
    girlfriend’s trailer. The police conducted a traffic stop and arrested Miles.
    ¶5             Miles was charged with failure to register as a sex offender
    under A.R.S. § 13-3821(A). After the state presented its case-in-chief, Miles
    moved for a judgment of acquittal pursuant to Ariz. R. Crim. P. (“Rule”)
    20(a). Miles argued that he was entitled to a judgment of acquittal because
    the state failed to prove he resided in Yavapai County. The court denied
    2
    STATE v. MILES
    Decision of the Court
    his motion. The jury found Miles guilty as charged, and the court sentenced
    him to a mitigated one-year term of imprisonment. Miles appeals.
    DISCUSSION
    ¶6             On appeal, Miles contends that the superior court erred in
    denying his Rule 20 motion because the state failed to present substantial
    evidence that he was required to register as a sex offender. Miles also
    contends that the state failed to prove that his naval conviction would have
    been an offense under Arizona law if it had been committed here. Because
    Miles failed to raise either of these arguments in the superior court, he must
    show fundamental error. See State v. Gendron, 
    168 Ariz. 153
    , 155 (1991)
    (noting the failure to raise an issue at trial waives all but fundamental error).
    Miles bears the burden of establishing “both that fundamental error
    occurred and that the error caused him prejudice.” State v. Henderson, 
    210 Ariz. 561
    , 568, ¶ 22 (2005). We will not find fundamental error where the
    complaining party invited the error. State v. Logan, 
    200 Ariz. 564
    , 565–66,
    ¶ 9 (2001).
    ¶7            As relevant here, A.R.S. § 13-3821(A)(13)1 provides:
    A. A person who has been convicted of . . . an offense
    committed in another jurisdiction that if committed in this
    state would be a violation or attempted violation of any of the
    following offenses . . . or who is required to register by the
    convicting or adjudicating jurisdiction, . . . after entering and
    remaining for at least seventy-two hours in any county of this
    state, shall register with the sheriff of that county: . . .
    13. Sexual exploitation of a minor pursuant to § 13-3553.
    Accordingly, the statute requires registration if: (1) the elements of Article
    134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice necessarily prove sexual
    exploitation of a minor under A.R.S. § 13-3553, or (2) Miles was required to
    register by the Navy. A.R.S. § 13-3821(A); see State v. Kuntz, 
    209 Ariz. 276
    ,
    279, ¶ 9 (App. 2004); State v. Lowery, 
    230 Ariz. 536
    , 541, ¶¶ 15–16 (App.
    2012).
    ¶8           Miles does not argue or establish that the superior court
    committed fundamental error. See State v. Moreno-Medrano, 
    218 Ariz. 349
    ,
    354, ¶ 17 (App. 2008) (noting that failure to argue fundamental error may
    1     We cite to the current version of applicable statutes absent any
    change material to this decision.
    3
    STATE v. MILES
    Decision of the Court
    result in waiver). At trial, Miles testified that he was required to register as
    a sex offender because of his naval conviction. Thus, if any error existed, it
    was invited.
    ¶9            In view of Miles’s testimony at trial, the potential dissimilarity
    between the two bodies of law is immaterial. Aside from Miles’s testimony
    that he was required to register as a sex offender, the state presented
    substantial evidence that Miles was required to register under A.R.S. § 13-
    3821(A). The parties stipulated that Miles had a prior conviction that
    required him to register as a sex offender, and he had in fact registered two
    times before. The state also presented evidence that Miles initialed an
    acknowledgement that he was required to register, and Miles admitted to a
    Yavapai County detective that he was required to register. Thus, we need
    not determine whether the elements of Article 134 of the Uniform Code of
    Military Justice necessarily prove sexual exploitation of a minor under
    A.R.S. § 13-3553. See Lowery, 230 Ariz. at 541, ¶¶ 15–16.
    CONCLUSION
    ¶10           We affirm.
    AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
    FILED: AA
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 1 CA-CR 21-0280

Filed Date: 2/22/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 2/22/2022