State v. Wright

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

SKYLER WRIGHT, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 21-0005
FILED 6-2-2022

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR 2019-006584-001
The Honorable Stephen M. Hopkins, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Linley Wilson
Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix
By Mark E. Dwyer
Counsel for Appellant

Skyler Wright, Mesa
Appellant
 STATE v. WRIGHT
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Jennifer B. Campbell delivered the decision of the Court,
in which Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge James B. Morse Jr. joined.

C A M P B E L L, Judge:

¶1 This appeal is presented to us pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969). Defense counsel
has searched the record on appeal and advised us there are no meritorious
grounds for reversal. Skyler Wright was given the opportunity to file a
supplemental brief and has done so. Our obligation is to review the entire
record for reversible error, State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999),
viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the
conviction and resolving all reasonable inferences against Wright. State v.
Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 293 (1989).

¶2 In August 2018, Wright responded to a Craigslist ad posted
by the Mesa Police Department as part of a sting operation, intended to
reduce the demand of child sex trafficking and prostitution online. The ad
stated: “Talked to a nice male the other day at Starbucks about teaching my
kids. I lost your number. . . . Hope you are here!!! Please reply. I need help!
And you were so nice!” Wright responded to the ad and began
communicating via email and text messages with an undercover police
officer who was pretending to be the mother of a minor girl. The
undercover officer asked if Wright was okay with condoms and if he would
be able to help them out financially, and Wright agreed to both.

¶3 Later that day, Wright agreed to go to the undercover officer’s
home to meet the “daughter.” The home was a rental property used by
Mesa Police for sting operations, equipped with video surveillance
equipment and interview rooms. When Wright arrived, he spoke with the
undercover officer and met the “daughter.” The undercover officer asked
about Wright’s sexual experiences and whether he would be willing to help
her with money. Wright indicated that he was interested in dating the
“daughter” and eventually engaging in sexual conduct with her. The
undercover officer then gave an arrest signal, and Wright was taken into
custody.

2
 STATE v. WRIGHT
Decision of the Court

¶4 The State charged Wright with one count of solicitation to
commit child sex trafficking and one count of attempted money laundering,
both class four felonies. See A.R.S. §§ 13-3212, -2317, -1002, -1001. Wright
waived his right to a trial by jury and the judge found his waiver to be
knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. A two-day bench trial was held. The
State introduced testimony from the undercover officer pretending to be
the “mother,” and another detective who subsequently interviewed
Wright. The State also introduced evidence of Wright’s emails, text
messages, and phone calls with the undercover officer, as well as video
recordings of Wright meeting the undercover officer and the “daughter,”
his arrest, and interview. The judge found Wright guilty of both charges
and a sentencing hearing was held on December 17, 2020.1 Wright was
placed on four years of supervised probation.

¶5 Wright’s counsel filed a notice of appeal, but the following
month filed a motion to withdraw as counsel, which the superior court
granted. Wright moved to appear as indigent but did not submit the
required affidavit of financial information, and the court denied his motion.
As a result, the court of appeals dismissed Wright’s appeal due to lack of
counsel and failure to make financial arrangements for transcripts of the
record. Wright then filed a second motion to proceed as indigent, this time
including the required affidavit. The superior court granted his motion to
proceed and we issued an order reinstating Wright’s appeal and appointing
counsel for him.

¶6 Wright filed a supplemental pro per brief. He argues that the
evidence does not support his conviction for solicitation or attempt, as
defined by §§ 13-1001 and -1002, and the judge abused his discretion in
finding Wright guilty of the charged offenses. He contends that there was
no explicit statement that he would engage in sexual conduct with the
minor, and that he never agreed to a fee arrangement or to exchange any
other valuable consideration. The evidence showed, however, that Wright
responded to a Craigslist ad about teaching the undercover officer’s
“daughter.” He knew the “daughter” was 14 years old, and that he told the
undercover officer that he wanted to have sex with the “daughter” down
the road. The sexual nature of this exchange is further supported by his
acquiescence that he was okay with using condoms. After the discussion of

1 An initial sentencing hearing was held on December 1, 2020 but was
rescheduled to allow the parties to negotiate the terms of probation,
specifically whether Wright could be required to register as a sexual
offender, whether there should be any incarceration requirement, and an
assessment for the address confidentiality program.

3
 STATE v. WRIGHT
Decision of the Court

the sexual education of the “daughter,” Wright agreed to give the
undercover officer money at some point in the future.

¶7 After a thorough review of the record, we find no reversible
error. Clark, 196 Ariz. at 541, ¶ 50. The record reflects Wright was present
and represented by counsel at all critical stages of the proceedings against
him. The evidence presented supports the convictions, and the sentences
imposed fall within the range permitted by law. As far as the record reveals,
these proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of
Criminal Procedure and Wright’s constitutional and statutory rights.
Therefore, we affirm Wright’s convictions and sentences.

¶8 Unless defense counsel finds an issue that may be
appropriately submitted to the Arizona Supreme Court, his obligations are
fulfilled once he informs Wright of the outcome of this appeal and his future
options. State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584–85 (1984). Wright has 30 days
from the date of this decision to proceed, if he wishes, with a pro per motion
for reconsideration or petition for review.

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

4