State v. Hon. adleman/beasley ( 2021 )


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    UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 ex rel. ALLISTER ADEL,
    Maricopa County Attorney, Petitioner,
    v.
    THE HONORABLE JAY R. ADLEMAN, Judge of the SUPERIOR COURT
    OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA, in and for the County of MARICOPA,
    Respondent Judge,
    SHAVONTE DESHAWN BEASLEY, Real Party in Interest.
    No. 1 CA-SA 21-0028
    FILED 03-25-2021
    Petition for Special Action from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
    No. CR2012-008302
    The Honorable Jay R. Adleman, Judge
    JURISDICTION ACCEPTED; RELIEF GRANTED IN PART AND
    DENIED IN PART
    COUNSEL
    Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
    By Julie A. Done, John Schneider, Kirsten Valenzuela
    Counsel for Petitioner
    Michael S. Reeves, Phoenix
    Co-Counsel for Real Party in Interest
    Daniela De La Torre, Phoenix
    Co-Counsel for Real Party in Interest
    MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, in which
    Presiding Judge Kent E. Cattani and Judge Brian Y. Furuya joined.
    T H U M M A, Judge:
    ¶1            The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office (the State) seeks
    special action review of a superior court order denying the State’s “Motion
    to Determine Non-Privileged Status of Communications” and finding that
    text messages between Shavonte Deshawn Beasley and his paralegal and
    mitigation specialist are privileged. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. (A.R.S.) § 13-
    4062(A)(2). Accepting special action jurisdiction, this court affirms that
    portion of the court’s finding that text messages sent after March 4, 2020 at
    10:21 a.m. are privileged. For text messages sent before that date and time,
    this court remands for further proceedings to resolve the “fact specific”
    inquiries of whether the communications were made in confidence and
    treated as confidential applying the analysis set forth in Clements v. Bernini,
    
    249 Ariz. 434
    , 440-41 ¶¶ 9–18 (2020).1
    FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
    ¶2            Beasley is awaiting trial on various felony charges, including
    first degree murder where the State is seeking the death penalty. Beasley
    was arrested in 2012 and has been in custody ever since. Beasley has
    asserted that he is not eligible for the death penalty based on intellectual
    disability, which the State disputes.
    ¶3              In late 2019, the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO)
    started making Telmate-brand computer tablets available to individuals
    held in its jails. These tablets allowed detainees to (1) make phone calls; (2)
    participate in video visits and (3) send and receive text messages. Beasley
    began using a tablet for text messaging on about February 10, 2020. He
    exchanged text messages with his family, a use that is not at issue here. He
    1Absent material revisions after the relevant date, statutes and rules cited
    refer to the current version unless otherwise indicated.
    2
    STATE v. HON. ADLEMAN/BEASLEY
    Decision of the Court
    also exchanged text messages with mitigation specialist Anna Nelson and
    his defense paralegal Nicole Erich, members of his defense team.
    ¶4            On March 11, 2020, the State issued and served a criminal
    subpoena duces tecum on the MCSO seeking Beasley’s text messages from
    January 1, 2020 to the present and specifying an April 1, 2020 return date.
    The subpoena noted “The State is not seeking any legal correspondence
    with this subpoena.” The subpoena, however, did not list the names of
    Beasley’s attorneys or other members of his defense team. The State did not
    serve Beasley with a copy of the subpoena when it was provided to the
    MCSO.
    ¶5             In response to the subpoena, the MCSO produced to the State
    all of Beasley’s text messages, including those with his mitigation specialist
    Anna Nelson and his defense paralegal Nicole Erich. Although the precise
    date of the MCSO’s production is unclear, the text messages produced to
    the State are from February 10, 2020 to April 10, 2020. After analyzing
    Beasley’s text messages, the State disclosed them and the subpoena to
    Beasley in April and May 2020. The disclosure included hundreds of text
    messages with mitigation specialist Nelson and about 20 text messages with
    paralegal Erich.
    ¶6            On May 12, 2020, the State filed a “Motion to Determine Non-
    Privileged Status of Communications,” claiming the text messages between
    Beasley and Nelson/Erich were not privileged. The State based this claim
    on two documents:
    •      MSCO Rules and Regulations for Inmate
    Addendum, Section 32, Effective 12/02/2019,
    stating: “All actions on a tablet are subject to
    review and/or approval by MCSO Staff and the
    tablet vendor. All non-legal phone calls, non-
    legal video visits, messages, and photos will be
    monitored by staff.”
    •      Telmate Terms and Conditions, last updated
    04/04/2017, which set forth terms of use for a
    Telmate tablet. Paragraph 3 (of 30) in this 12-
    page “clickwrap” user agreement states: “The
    only method of communication that offers the
    protection   of    privileged   attorney-client
    communication at this time is telephone
    communications. Any and all other content or
    3
    STATE v. HON. ADLEMAN/BEASLEY
    Decision of the Court
    information shared, transmitted, or sent using
    any messaging or video visitation system or any
    other method, may be accessed, reviewed,
    searched, used, recorded, copied, viewed,
    listened to, displayed, or distributed by Telmate
    correctional facility staff, or agents of law
    enforcement. You hereby acknowledge your
    awareness of, understand, and consent to all
    such activity. Attorneys who wish to make
    privileged      communications       with    their
    respective clients must first inquire and confirm
    their identity and client relationship with the
    facility staff before utilizing the Telmate
    system.” This user agreement also limits
    Telmate’s liability; mandates arbitration for any
    dispute; requires court disputes to be resolved
    in “state and federal courts located in San
    Francisco, California” and provides it is
    governed by Delaware law.
    The State’s motion also quoted some of Beasley’s texts, claiming they
    supported its argument that Beasley and his defense team had no
    expectation of privacy and knew the texts were being monitored. The
    State’s motion did not request an evidentiary hearing and did not ask the
    court to undertake a document-by-document review of the text messages.
    ¶7            Beasley then responded to the State’s motion.2 Beasley’s
    response included an email to Beasley’s mitigation specialist Nelson from
    MCSO Sergeant Jason House at 10:21 a.m. on March 4, 2020, stating that
    “For the purposes of mitigation, [Beasley’s tablet] account has been marked
    professional, not recorded and free.”
    ¶8           The State then replied in further support of its motion, again
    citing the MSCO Rules and Regulations for Inmate Addendum and the
    Telmate Terms and Conditions. Consistent with the State’s motion, this
    reply asked the court to find Beasley’s text “messages are not privileged in
    any way.” Consistent with the State’s motion, the reply did not request an
    2Before responding, Beasley moved for a more definite statement, seeking
    an order that the State disclose the specific text messages it intended to use.
    After the State responded, the superior court noted the motion and
    response; presumably denied the motion and, in any event, the motion for
    a more definite statement is not part of this special action.
    4
    STATE v. HON. ADLEMAN/BEASLEY
    Decision of the Court
    evidentiary hearing and did not ask the court to undertake a document-by-
    document review of the text messages.
    ¶9            The court then heard extended oral argument on the State’s
    motion. After taking the matter under advisement, the court issued a nine-
    page minute entry denying the State’s motion. The court noted Sergeant
    House’s March 4, 2020 acknowledgment that for “the purpose of
    mitigation, this account has been marked professional, not recorded, and
    free.” (Emphasis added.) In focusing on the “account” reference by
    Sergeant House, the court rejected the State’s position, raised at oral
    argument, that text messages were not included in Sergeant House’s
    directive and would be treated differently than other forms of legal
    communication. Along with setting forth the applicable law, the court
    found Ethical Rule 4.4 (specifying the appropriate process for an attorney
    receiving inadvertent production of documents or electronically stored
    information) “instructive” about the State’s obligations upon receipt of the
    text messages. Ultimately, the court found Beasley’s “tablet
    communications with Anna Nelson and Nicole Erich are privileged and
    confidential in accordance with Arizona law. See A.R.S. § 13-4062(2)” and
    that Beasley’s conduct did not waive that privilege.
    ¶10           The State moved to reconsider, claiming various legal and
    factual errors and noting the Arizona Supreme Court’s then-new decision
    in Clements v. Bernini, 
    249 Ariz. 434
     (2020). Although the State’s original
    motion did not request an evidentiary hearing, the State’s motion to
    reconsider claimed the court “erred in denying the State’s request for an
    evidentiary hearing” and requested an evidentiary hearing on the motion
    to reconsider. Although not requested in the State’s original motion, the
    State’s motion to reconsider stated the superior court “should make specific
    findings as each communication [text message] or group of
    communications necessitates,” citing Clements.
    ¶11           After receiving a response from Beasley, the court denied the
    State’s motion to reconsider, including its request for an evidentiary
    hearing. In doing so, the court found that Clements validated the original
    ruling and that Beasley “has met his burden of demonstrating the
    applicability of the attorney-client privilege.” This special action followed.
    5
    STATE v. HON. ADLEMAN/BEASLEY
    Decision of the Court
    DISCUSSION
    ¶12           Because special action jurisdiction is appropriate to determine
    the application of a privilege, see, e.g., Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix v.
    Superior Court, 
    204 Ariz. 225
    , 227 ¶ 2 (App. 2003), this court accepts
    jurisdiction.
    ¶13            The State acknowledges that, to secure relief, it must show the
    superior court abused its discretion or exceeded its jurisdiction or legal
    authority in denying the State’s motions. Twin City Fire Ins. Co. v. Burke, 
    204 Ariz. 251
    , 253 ¶ 10 (2003); Ariz. R.P. Spec. Act. 3. The State argues the court
    erred by incorrectly interpreting and applying the law on the attorney-
    client privilege.
    ¶14             The State argues the court erred in denying its motion by
    finding all text messages were privileged without undertaking a document-
    by-document review and without holding an evidentiary hearing. The
    State’s “Motion to Determine Non-Privileged Status of Communications”
    did not request such a review or an evidentiary hearing. Although the
    State’s motion to reconsider at least arguably did so, the State has not shown
    that expanding the relief sought for the first time in a motion to reconsider
    is proper or appropriate. Cf. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 16.1(d); Brookover v. Roberts
    Enterprises, Inc., 
    215 Ariz. 52
    , 57 ¶ 17 n.2 (App. 2007) (noting in dicta that
    this court seldom considers new arguments or evidence presented for the
    first time to the superior court in a motion to reconsider). To the extent that
    the State claims the superior court erred in failing to undertake those
    requests, on this record, the State has shown no error.
    ¶15           Turning to the merits, Arizona’s attorney-client privilege
    codified at A.R.S. § 13-4062(A)(2) arises from a criminal defendant’s due
    process rights “guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United
    States Constitution and by article 2, section 4 of the Arizona Constitution,
    and from a criminal defendant’s right to the assistance of counsel under the
    Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article 2, section 24
    of the Arizona Constitution.” Clements, 249 Ariz. at 439 ¶ 7 (citations
    omitted). When a privilege is disputed, the proponent must make a prima
    facie showing that the privilege applies. Id. at ¶ 8. That fact-specific inquiry
    looks at whether “1) there is an attorney-client relationship, 2) the
    communication was made to secure or provide legal advice, 3) the
    communication was made in confidence, and 4) the communication was
    treated as confidential.” Id. at ¶ 9.
    6
    STATE v. HON. ADLEMAN/BEASLEY
    Decision of the Court
    ¶16            The first Clements element is undisputed and the State, by
    failing to request a document-specific review in its original motion, failed
    to properly join the second element. “The third and fourth elements of the
    privilege reflect that only communications made in confidence and treated
    as confidential are protected.” Clements, 249 Ariz. at 440 ¶ 11. As applied,
    this confidentiality determination turns on when the text messages were
    sent.
    ¶17           As the superior court noted, MCSO Sergeant House at 10:21
    a.m. on March 4, 2020 wrote that “For the purposes of mitigation,
    [Beasley’s] account has been marked professional, not recorded and free.”
    This representation by Beasley’s jailer provided the assurances of
    confidentiality necessary to comply with the third and fourth elements in
    Clements. Although the State argues the superior court should have
    construed Sergeant House’s email differently, it has shown no error by that
    court in reaching this conclusion. As a result, on this record, text messages
    sent on or after March 4, 2020 at 10:21 a.m. were sent following assurances
    of confidentiality by Beasley’s jailors, meaning the third and fourth
    Clements elements have been satisfied.
    ¶18          By contrast, for text messages that predate 10:21 a.m. on
    March 4, 2020, there were no such assurances of confidentiality. And the
    MCSO Rules and Regulations for Inmate Addendum and the Telmate
    Terms and Conditions could be read in various ways, including as
    providing that, in fact, the assurances were to the contrary. Thus, on the
    record provided, that portion of the superior court’s order finding text
    messages sent before 10:21 a.m. on March 4, 2020 were privileged is
    vacated. As a result, additional proceedings before the superior court are
    necessary to determine whether text messages sent before 10:21 a.m. on
    March 4, 2020 are privileged.
    ¶19           This court leaves to the superior court the appropriate
    procedure to address the substantive issue of whether elements 3 and 4 of
    the Clements analysis have been met as to the pre-10:23 a.m. on March 4,
    2020 text messages. See Clements, 249 Ariz. at 441-42 ¶¶ 13-18 (“declin[ing]
    to adopt a bright-line approach,” instead identifying factors for a trial court
    to consider in addressing the issue).
    7
    STATE v. HON. ADLEMAN/BEASLEY
    Decision of the Court
    CONCLUSION
    ¶20            Accepting special action jurisdiction, this Court denies relief
    for that portion of the superior court’s order finding the text messages sent
    on or after March 4, 2020 at 10:21 a.m. are privileged. For text messages that
    precede that date and time, the matter is remanded to the superior court for
    further proceedings consistent with this decision.
    AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
    FILED:    HB
    8
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 1 CA-SA 21-0028

Filed Date: 3/25/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 3/25/2021