State v. Smith

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

STANLEY WILBURN SMITH, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 24-0205
FILED 01-09-2025

Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County
No. P1300CR202201244
The Honorable Debra R. Phelan, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

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

The Zickerman Law Office PLLC, Flagstaff
By Adam Zickerman
Counsel for Appellant
 STATE v. SMITH
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Andrew M. Jacobs delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz and Judge Samuel A. Thumma joined.

J A C O B S, Judge:

¶1 This appeal is filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969). Counsel for
Appellant/Defendant Stanley Smith has advised this Court that he found
no arguable questions of law and asks us to search the record for
fundamental error. Smith has filed a supplemental brief, alleging that
defense counsel’s performance at trial was deficient. Smith was convicted
of ten counts of sexual exploitation of a minor, all class 2 felonies, and
sentenced to ten consecutive sentences of ten years each, resulting in a total
of 100 years imprisonment. After reviewing the record and the briefs, we
affirm Smith’s convictions and sentences.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 On September 29, 2022, Smith’s live-in girlfriend, Patricia
Corbiere, discovered several illicit sexual photographs of children on
Smith’s cellphone. Feeling “hysterical[,]” Corbiere deleted the images from
Smith’s phone. Before deleting the images, however, Corbiere used her
phone to take photographs of five of the “more disgusting” images
displayed on Smith’s phone because she “did not want [Smith] to be able to
come back and say that the photos weren’t there on his phone when they
were.”

¶3 The next day, Corbiere reported this discovery to the Prescott
Police Department. After interviewing Corbiere, law enforcement arrested
Smith and seized both Smith’s cellphone and Corbiere’s. Smith admitted
during an interview that his phone contained images of children and that
he had masturbated to those images.

¶4 After applying for and receiving a search warrant for both
Smith’s phone and Corbiere’s, the detectives performed a forensic
download of both cellphones and recovered the images that Corbiere
deleted from Smith’s phone. The detectives then consulted Dr. Maria
Aldana Sierra, an attending physician in the child protection team at

2
 STATE v. SMITH
Decision of the Court

Phoenix Children’s Hospital. She concluded that all ten sexually exploitive
images depicted girls under fifteen years old.

¶5 Smith was indicted on ten counts of sexual exploitation of a
minor, all class 2 felonies. At his arraignment, Smith pleaded not guilty. At
trial, the jury rendered guilty verdicts on all counts and found that all ten
sexually exploitive images depicted girls under the age of fifteen.

¶6 In preparation for sentencing, the court reviewed the record
and the presentence investigation report. During the hearing, the court
found several mitigating factors, including Smith’s childhood trauma, the
lack of felonies in his criminal history, his cooperation with law
enforcement, and the support letters submitted by his family. The court
found no aggravating factors beyond acknowledging the severity of
Smith’s offense. The court ultimately sentenced Smith to ten consecutive
sentences of ten years each, resulting in a total of 100 years imprisonment,
with credit for 52 days of presentence incarceration.

¶7 Smith timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and A.R.S. §§ 12-
120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, -4033(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶8 We find no reversible error. The record reflects that Smith
was represented at all stages and afforded all constitutional and statutory
rights and that all proceedings were conducted in accordance with all
applicable procedural rules. The record contains substantial evidence
supporting the verdict, and the court’s sentence was within the statutory
limits.

¶9 The record reflects that Smith was represented by counsel,
who was present at all critical stages of the proceedings. However, Smith
argues in his supplemental brief that defense counsel was incompetent,
alleging that counsel was inconsiderate concerning Smith’s health
challenges and failed to communicate with Smith about the case. But claims
of ineffective assistance of counsel may not be raised on direct appeal. State
ex rel. Thomas v. Rayes, 214 Ariz. 411, 415 ¶ 20 (2007). Instead, such claims
must be presented to the trial court in a post-conviction relief proceeding.
Id. We thus decline to address the issue in this direct review proceeding.

¶10 At trial, the State presented sufficient evidence of Smith’s
guilt, and the jury properly rendered a guilty verdict. “A person commits
sexual exploitation of a minor by knowingly . . . possessing . . . any visual

3
 STATE v. SMITH
Decision of the Court

depiction in which a minor is engaged in exploitive exhibition or other
sexual conduct.” A.R.S. § 13-3553(A)(2). Here, the State presented
testimonial and physical evidence that Smith possessed ten sexually
exploitive images of minors under fifteen years old on his cellphone, and
the jury subsequently rendered guilty verdicts on all ten counts of sexual
exploitation of a minor.

¶11 “Sexual exploitation of a minor is a class 2 felony” and is
punishable pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-705 “if the minor is under fifteen years
of age[.]” A.R.S. § 13-3553(C). Pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-705(F), individuals
convicted of sexual exploitation of a minor face a minimum sentence of ten
years imprisonment for each count. Each sentence imposed “shall be
consecutive to any other sentenced imposed[.]” A.R.S. § 13-705(P). Here,
after the court found several mitigating factors, the court gave Smith the
minimum sentence afforded by A.R.S. § 13-705, ten consecutive sentences
of ten years each. The court also properly granted credit for 52 days of pre-
sentence incarceration. We thus find no error in Smith’s sentence.

CONCLUSION

¶12 We have read and considered the briefs submitted and fully
reviewed the record for reversible error, see Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, and find
none. Accordingly, we affirm Smith’s conviction and sentence. Upon the
filing of this decision, defense counsel shall inform Smith of the status of the
appeal and of his 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). Smith shall have thirty 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: JR

4