State v. Astle

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

WADE ASTLE, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 23-0510
FILED 02-27-2025

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2019-001849-001
The Honorable Geoffrey H. Fish, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

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

The Law Office of Kyle T. Green P.L.L.C., Tempe
By Kyle Green
Counsel for Appellant

Wade Astle, Florence
Appellant
 STATE v. ASTLE
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Judge Andrew M. Jacobs and Angela K. Paton joined.

T H U M M A, Judge:

¶1 This is an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969). Counsel for defendant Wade
Astle has advised the court that, after searching the entire record, he has
found no arguable questions of law and asks this court to conduct an Anders
review of the record. Astle was given the opportunity to file a supplemental
brief pro se, and has done so. This court has reviewed the record and has
found no reversible error. Accordingly, Astle’s convictions and resulting
sentences are affirmed.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 In 2017, Astle was living in a casita on the back of his sister’s
property in Mesa. The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office obtained a search
warrant to search the property relating to electronic items. During the
search, officers found CDs containing images of minors engaging in
exploitive or sexual conduct. As relevant here, Astle was charged with nine
counts of sexual exploitation of a minor, each a Class 2 felony and
Dangerous Crime Against Children.

¶3 The State filed a pretrial motion to admit, under Ariz. R. Evid.
404(b) and (c), Astle’s possession of more than 1,000 asserted images of
child sexual exploitation, his alleged sharing of more than 200 of these
images, and his internet search history relating to sexual images of children.
After full briefing, an evidentiary hearing and oral argument, the superior
court denied the motion as to the alleged file-sharing, but granted the
remainder of the motion.

¶4 At trial, the State presented testimony that Astle was living in
the casita at the time of the search warrant, the CDs were found in the casita
and the individuals in the images were less than 15 years old. After the State
rested, Astle moved for a judgment of acquittal, which the superior court
denied, finding the State had presented substantial evidence to support a

2
 STATE v. ASTLE
Decision of the Court

conviction for each charge. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 20(a)(1) (2025).1 Astle
elected not to testify on his own behalf, as was his right. After closing
arguments and deliberation, the jury found Astle guilty as charged.

¶5 The superior court later sentenced Astle to ten years in prison,
the minimum sentence, for each of the nine convictions, with the sentences
to run consecutively to each other, and awarded him seventy days of
presentence incarceration credit for the first conviction. This court has
jurisdiction over Astle’s timely appeal under Article 6, Section 9, of the
Arizona Constitution, and Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) §§ 12-
120.21(A)(1), 13-4031 and 13-4033(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶6 This court reviews the entire record for reversible error, State
v. Thompson, 229 Ariz. 43, 45 ¶ 3 (App. 2012), viewing the facts in the light
most favorable to sustaining the convictions and resolving all reasonable
inferences against Astle, see State v. Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230 ¶ 2 (App. 1998).

¶7 Counsel for Astle has advised this court that after a diligent
search of the entire record, counsel has found no arguable question of law.
Astle filed a supplemental brief raising several issues, including improper
admission of evidence. Astle argues the court “erred in allowing peer-to-
peer search terms in the 404 ruling.” Though he asserts the search terms
should have been excluded because evidence of peer-to-peer file sharing
was excluded, and both types of evidence “were associated with the same
software,” Astle has not shown the court erred in admitting the other act
evidence.

¶8 Astle also argues the court erred “in not following the 404
ruling, denying the rule 20, [and] providing insufficient jury instructions.”
Astle argues the court erred by not providing a sua sponte limiting
instruction during the State’s opening statement, during witness testimony
and when the other act evidence was admitted. He states these
circumstances “could cause enough to have the jury view the items in an
unfair light and prejudice the entire trial.”

1 Absent material revisions after the relevant dates, statutes and rules cited

refer to the current version unless otherwise indicated.

3
 STATE v. ASTLE
Decision of the Court

¶9 The other act evidence was admitted for a permitted purpose.
See Ariz. R. Evid. 404(b). As such, “on timely request” of a party, the court
“must restrict the evidence to its proper scope and instruct the jury
accordingly.” Ariz. R. Evid. 105. Astle, however, made no such timely
request. Even then, the court’s final jury instructions included such a
limiting instruction, which mitigated any unfair prejudice from the
evidence. See State v. Villalobos, 225 Ariz. 74, 80 ¶ 20 (2010) (citing authority).

¶10 Astle also argues “the prosecutor’s actions and comments
constitute misconduct.” However, Astle fails to show how the cited
behaviors amount to misconduct. Astle takes issue with the fact the State
did not request a limiting instruction that a witness’ testimony “was for 404
reasons only.” But it is not the State’s responsibility to do so, and as
previously mentioned, Astle did not timely request a limiting instruction.
See Ariz. R. Evid. 105. Astle also argues the State’s closing argument “says
the defense counsel said or presented things that she did not,” but Astle
fails to provide any specificity or supporting facts.

¶11 Astle argues that defense counsel was ineffective because she
did not object during “critical moments,” did not ask for a mistrial and
“responded to the 404 request two years after the prosecutor submitted it.”
Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, however, may not be raised on
direct appeal. State ex rel. Thomas v. Rayes, 214 Ariz. 411, 415 ¶ 20 (2007).

CONCLUSION

¶12 This court has read and considered counsel’s brief, Astle’s
supplemental brief and fully reviewed the record for reversible error, see
Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, and finds none. The proceedings were conducted in
compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. So far as the
record reveals, counsel represented Astle at all stages of the proceedings
and the sentences imposed were within the statutory guidelines. This court
declines to order briefing and affirms Astle’s convictions and sentences.

4
 STATE v. ASTLE
Decision of the Court

¶13 Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel shall inform
Astle of the status of the appeal and of his 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. State
v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85 (1984). Astle shall have 30 days from the
date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, to file as a self-represented
party a motion for reconsideration or a petition for review.

MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court
FILED: JR

5