State v. Wilson

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

MARK ANTHONY WILSON, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 23-0307
FILED 06-06-2024

Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County
No. S8015CR202200428
The Honorable Billy K. Sipe Jr., Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED AS CORRECTED

COUNSEL

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

Janelle A. McEachern, Chandler
Counsel for Appellant
 STATE v. WILSON
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge James B. Morse Jr. delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Angela K. Paton and Judge Michael S. Catlett joined.

M O R S E, Judge:

¶1 Mark Anthony Wilson appeals his convictions and sentences
for four counts of sexual conduct with a minor and one count of sexual
abuse with a minor. After searching the entire record, Wilson's defense
counsel identified no non-frivolous arguable question of law. In
accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), defense counsel asks this Court to search the record for
fundamental error. Wilson was given an opportunity to file a supplemental
brief in propria persona but did not do so. Finding no reversible error, we
affirm Wilson's convictions and sentences and modify the sentencing
minute entry to reflect that the conviction for count six of the indictment
was for a class 3 felony.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 In April 2022, a grand jury indicted Wilson on six counts of
sexual conduct with a minor and a single count of sexual abuse. The counts
involved four victims, "PW," "PB," "RM," and "CH."1 The superior court
granted the State's motion to dismiss the counts involving PB prior to trial.
Wilson rejected the State's plea offer after a settlement conference, and in
May 2023, the court held a four-day jury trial.

¶3 PW was Wilson's biological daughter. PW was 17 years old
at the time of the incident in March 2022. PW testified that, on the date of
the incident, Wilson entered her bedroom as she slept, pulled down her
clothing, and penetrated her vagina with his penis. PW further testified
that Wilson engaged in this conduct with PW for hours.

¶4 RM was one of PW's closest friends. RM testified that in
March 2020, when she was 14 years old, she was in bed with PW and awoke

1 We use victim identifiers in place of the victims' names to protect the
victims' identities. Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(i).

2
 STATE v. WILSON
Decision of the Court

to find Wilson touching her. RM testified that Wilson touched her under
her clothing and underwear. Wilson then touched and rubbed RM's vagina
and clitoris under her underwear.

¶5 CH's mother lived with Wilson. CH testified that in March
2022, when she was 10 years old, she was at Wilson's home when Wilson
convinced her to sit on his lap while she played a video game. As she did
so, Wilson placed his hands in CH's pants and touched her vagina over her
underwear.

¶6 The court granted Wilson's motion for judgment of acquittal
on one count of sexual conduct with a minor involving PW. The jury found
Wilson guilty of the three remaining counts of sexual conduct with a minor
and one count of sexual abuse. The jury further found the counts of sexual
conduct with a minor involving RM and CH were dangerous crimes against
children ("DCAC") based on the victims' ages. See A.R.S. § 13-705(T)(1)(e).
The jury also found aggravating circumstances in that all victims suffered
physical or emotional harm.

¶7 The court conducted the sentencing hearing in compliance
with Wilson's constitutional rights and Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure
("Rule") 26. The court found Wilson's lack of prior felony convictions and
the support of his friends and family were mitigating circumstances but
sentenced Wilson to aggravated and consecutive terms on all counts—eight
years for each non-DCAC count, and 22 years for each DCAC count. The
court also awarded 468 days of presentence incarceration credit. See A.R.S.
§§ 13-705(K), -1405(B).

¶8 The sentencing minute entry dated July 17, 2023, however,
contains an error. The minute entry identifies count six of the indictment,
sexual abuse of a minor under the age of 15, as a class 2 felony. Sexual abuse
of a minor under the age of 15 is a class 3 felony. A.R.S. § 13-1404(C). While
the original indictment erroneously identified the offense as a class 2 felony,
the error was corrected when the trial court amended the indictment to
identify the offense as a class 3 felony.

DISCUSSION

¶9 "We construe the evidence in the light most favorable to
sustaining the verdict, and resolve all reasonable inferences against the
defendant." State v. Greene, 192 Ariz. 431, 436, ¶ 12 (1998). In our review of
the record, we do not reweigh the evidence, and we resolve any conflict in
the evidence in favor of sustaining the verdict. State v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289,
293 (1989).

3
 STATE v. WILSON
Decision of the Court

¶10 We review Wilson's convictions and sentences for
fundamental error. See State v. Flores, 227 Ariz. 509, 512, ¶ 12 (App. 2011).
Counsel for Wilson has advised this Court that after a diligent search of the
entire record, counsel has 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 proceedings
were conducted in compliance with the Rules, and the record reveals that
Wilson was present at all critical stages of the proceedings and represented
by counsel. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 6.1, 19.2. The State presented sufficient
evidence from which the jury could determine Wilson's guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt. See State v. West, 226 Ariz. 559, 562, ¶ 16 (2011). The jury
was comprised of 12 members. See A.R.S. § 21-102(A). The court properly
instructed the jury on the presumption of innocence, the burden of proof,
and the elements of the charged offenses.

¶11 The court received a presentence report. Ariz. R. Crim. P.
26.4. The court afforded Wilson an opportunity to speak at sentencing,
imposed sentences within the statutory limits, and stated on the record the
evidence and factors it considered in imposing the sentences. See A.R.S. §§
13-705, -1404(A), -1405(A); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 26.9–26.10. Pursuant to A.R.S.
§ 13-4037, we correct the sentencing minute entry to reflect that the
conviction for count six of the indictment was for a class 3 felony.

CONCLUSION

¶12 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Wilson's convictions and
sentences and modify the sentencing minute entry. Upon the filing of this
decision, defense counsel shall inform Wilson of the status of the appeal
and of Wilson's 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). Wilson shall have 30 days from the date of this
decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro per motion for reconsideration
or petition for review.

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

4