State v. Williams

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

v.

KRISTI MEGAN WILLIAMS, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 25-0285 PRPC
FILED 02-06-2026

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Mohave County
No. S8015CR202101029
The Honorable Douglas Camacho, Judge Pro Tempore

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Mohave County Attorney’s Office, Kingman
By Leah Nelson
Counsel for Respondent

Janelle A. Mc Eachern Attorney at Law, Chandler
By Janelle A. Mc Eachern
Counsel for Petitioner
 STATE v. WILLIAMS
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge David B. Gass, Judge Anni Hill Foster, and Chief Judge
Randall M. Howe delivered the decision of the Court.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner Kristi Megan Williams seeks review of the superior
court’s order denying her petition for post-conviction relief under Rule 32,
Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. This matter is petitioner’s first
petition.

¶2 In her petition, Williams raised several issues, including
arguing the superior court should have excluded her statements to police
officers for 2 reasons: (1) because they were involuntary and (2) because she
made them after she invoked her rights under State v. Miranda, 384 U.S. 436
(1966). The superior court summarily denied her requested relief on the
voluntariness argument, but ordered an evidentiary hearing on the Miranda
issue. Even so, during the evidentiary hearing Williams offered evidence
about the voluntariness issue, which the superior court addressed in its
post-hearing ruling.

¶3 In her petition before the court, Williams challenges the
superior court’s voluntariness ruling, but she relies on the evidence
produced in the Miranda hearing. Based on Williams’s petition and the
record, the court grants review, but denies relief.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶4 The facts underlying Williams’s convictions are convoluted
and unusual. As discussed below, the court previously granted Williams
some relief in her direct appeal in State v. Williams, 1 CA-CR 22-0388, 2023
WL 5371366, at *1 (App. Aug. 22, 2023) (mem. decision). That case lays out
the factual background underlying her convictions, and the court will not
repeat the facts unless necessary to understand the issues here.

I. Late one night, Williams found herself at a suicide scene on the
side of the road in a remote area in Lake Havasu.

¶5 The court views the facts and all reasonable inferences in the
light most favorable to affirming the superior court’s ruling. See State v.

2
 STATE v. WILLIAMS
Decision of the Court

Reed, 252 Ariz. 236, 237 n.2 (App. 2021) (applying principle to appellate
review of post-conviction relief proceedings).

¶6 Williams was driving a Dodge Challenger in a remote area in
Lake Havasu when she picked up a hitchhiker who was on crutches. At one
point, she pulled to the side of the road so they could smoke marijuana.
After smoking, Williams noticed the Challenger was stuck, leaving them
stranded. After a while, she went looking for help and came across a suicide
scene. The hitchhiker came along later, at which point Williams showed
him the truck and then the body.

¶7 Rather than going to the police, Williams took the deceased’s
truck and trailer (including the tools in the trailer) and drove to a friend’s
house, where she stayed for several hours before her friend drove her back
to the scene. Williams and her friend left the deceased’s truck and trailer
(including the tools) parked near the friend’s house. The hitchhiker did not
leave the scene with Williams and later called the police.

¶8 Williams talked to several officers near the scene. During the
conversations, her story evolved because she wanted to make sure the
police would not tie her to the methamphetamine pipe in the Challenger
she was driving earlier. She eventually admitted to taking the deceased’s
truck and trailer after finding his body. The police also determined
someone reported the Challenger Williams had been driving as stolen.

¶9 A grand jury indicted Williams on 2 counts of theft of a means
of transportation, class 3 felonies (counts 1 & 2), 1 count of theft (value over
$4000), a class 3 felony (count 3), and 1 count of false reporting to a law
enforcement agency, a class 1 misdemeanor (count 4). After trial, a jury
convicted Williams of 1 count of theft of means of transportation and 1
count of theft of property (the tools) with a value between $1,000 and $2,000.
The superior court found her guilty of 1 count of misdemeanor false
reporting to a law enforcement agency. Williams’s criminal history resulted
in the court classifying her as a category 3 offender. The superior court thus
sentenced her to 18 years in prison for the theft of means count, a concurrent
sentence of 4 years in prison for the theft of property (the tools) count, and
time served for the misdemeanor false reporting to a law enforcement
agency.

¶10 On appeal, the State conceded the superior court should have
merged the convictions for theft of means and for theft of property (the
tools). The superior court merged the 2 convictions, affirmed the sentence
for theft of means, but vacated the sentence for theft of property.

3
 STATE v. WILLIAMS
Decision of the Court

¶11 Williams then began this post-conviction relief process.

II. Williams raised 4 issues in her petition for post-conviction relief
before the superior court, only 1 of which she pursues here.

¶12 Williams sought relief on these grounds:

1. The addendum to the indictment contained errors.

2. The superior court violated her confrontation clause rights because
the State never called the hitchhiker as a witness, but the police still
testified about some of his statements to them.

3. Her confessions were involuntary because the police coerced her
into admitting she drove the deceased’s truck and trailer.

4. Her confessions were involuntary because she made them after she
invoked her Miranda rights.

¶13 After a response and reply, the superior court denied
Williams’s petition on the first 3 issues. The superior court found it could
not resolve the fourth, the Miranda issue, based on the evidence presented
at trial so it ordered an evidentiary hearing on the Miranda issue.

¶14 In its ruling, the superior court noted Williams seemed to
suggest the State engaged in prosecutorial misconduct and her trial
counsel’s performance was ineffective because trial counsel did not pursue
the claims sooner. But the superior court ruled the record did not support
those claims. Williams’s petition before this court does not mention
prosecutorial misconduct or ineffective assistance of counsel.

III. After an evidentiary hearing, the superior court denied Williams’s
requested relief.

¶15 The superior court held a 2-hour evidentiary hearing on
whether the police continued questioning her after she invoked her Miranda
rights. Williams and 2 of the investigating officers testified.

¶16 Williams said she believed the police gave her Miranda rights
twice, and she said she invoked her right to remain silent at least once. She
said several things affected her mental state that night which resulted in her
unclear memory of the events. First, she was scared that night. Second, at
her friend’s house, she consumed ½ a bottle of vodka and smoked both
marijuana and methamphetamine. She also said she was hallucinating
when she spoke to the police. Still, in the police body camera footage, she

4
 STATE v. WILLIAMS
Decision of the Court

appeared coherent and said all she had consumed was some alcohol. She
also answered basic questions correctly.

¶17 Despite her alleged incapacitated condition, Williams said she
understood she was under arrest for theft of the truck and trailer. Though
she was unsure who explained her Miranda rights, she claims to have
invoked her right to remain silent after the interrogating officer at the police
station said he planned to talk to her about a potential homicide, referring
to the suicide victim. But the recordings of the police station interrogation
contradict her testimony.

¶18 Williams testified about several reasons she thought she had
to talk to police to prevent them from charging her with homicide. The
reasons included knowing her fingerprints were at the scene, feeling
morally obligated to tell the police what she knew, and having had sex with
her friend so he would drive her to the police station. The police did not
create any of these reasons.

¶19 In contrast, the officer who spoke with Williams at the scene
said he and Williams met at around 2:00 a.m. He did not know if another
officer explained Miranda rights to Williams at the scene. Though Williams
was disheveled, she was coherent and did not appear to be drunk or high.
And he said Williams never mentioned an alibi.

¶20 The officer who spoke to Williams at the police station said he
explained Williams’s Miranda rights to her before the interview. He said
homicide only came up once towards the end of the conversation, and he
did not threaten Williams with any homicide prosecution. He also said
Williams did not invoke her right to an attorney.

¶21 The recordings in evidence are consistent with the officers’
testimony.

IV. The superior court made extensive findings at the end of the
evidentiary hearing.

¶22 The superior court acknowledged Williams presented
evidence showing her confession was involuntary because the police
coerced her to confess. The superior court said that evidence did not cause
it to reconsider its earlier denial of her claim. The superior court then
addressed whether Williams made any of her statements in violation of
Miranda.

5
 STATE v. WILLIAMS
Decision of the Court

¶23 As to the right to counsel, the superior court said if it accepted
Williams’s testimony as true, she invoked her right to an attorney. As to the
right to remain silent, the superior court said based on her testimony, she
left the “implication that she may have invoked her right to remain silent.”
The superior court also discussed several exhibits showing Williams
received her Miranda rights. The superior court recognized Williams said
she invoked her rights when a specific officer was present.

¶24 But the officers’ testimony and the video evidence did not
support Williams’s testimony. The officers were wearing active body
cameras, and the officer recorded her police station interview. The superior
court said it reviewed about 4 hours of body camera footage and the police
station interview and said at no point did Williams invoke her right to
remain silent or to an attorney. The superior court then said, “I find that the
defendant has failed to show that there was any invocation of her right to
remain silent or of her right to have an attorney present during
questioning.” The superior court also said, “I did not see the officers
interrogate the defendant or ask questions of the defendant after she had
been taken into custody at least while on the scene or being transported to
the police station . . . .”

¶25 The court accepts review and has jurisdiction under A.R.S.
§ 13-4239.C and Rule 32.16, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.

DISCUSSION

¶26 Under Rule 32.13(d), Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure,
the superior court must “make specific findings of fact and . . . state
expressly its conclusions of law relating to each issue presented.” State v.
Pandeli, 242 Ariz. 175, 180 ¶ 3 (2017) (quoting State v. Tankersley, 211 Ariz.
323, 324 (2005)) (interpreting then Rule 32.8, which has been renumbered as
Rule 32.13). To prevail, Williams must show the superior court abused its
discretion when it denied her petition. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 538
¶ 1 (App. 2011) (placing burden of establishing abuse of discretion on
review on the petitioner). Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, the
court will not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-
conviction relief. State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577 ¶ 19 (2012). Because
the superior court held an evidentiary hearing on Williams’s petition for
post-conviction relief, the court reviews the superior court’s factual
findings for clear error. Pandeli, 242 Ariz. at 180 ¶ 3 (citing State v. Cuffle, 171
Ariz. 49, 51 (1992)).

6
 STATE v. WILLIAMS
Decision of the Court

¶27 The court reviewed the record, including Williams’s petition
for post-conviction relief, the State’s response, Williams’s reply, the
transcript of the superior court hearing on Williams’s petition, the exhibits,
and the superior court’s order denying the petition for post-conviction
relief.

¶28 Based on the court’s review, Williams has not established the
superior court abused its discretion. Her petition points to no alleged
factual error. Her summary of her argument says it all:

At the evidentiary hearing, [Williams’s] recall was not much
better and the Trial Court relied on the body camera footage
of one of the officers, Officer Donahue, as well as the
videotaped interview between Petitioner and Det. Levine. In
neither footage is there an apparent[] invocation on
Petitioner’s part, however, her statement[s] were not
voluntary based on the fact of her confused mental state, basic
lack of understanding of the circumstances, and the desperate
circumstances in which she found herself. Based on the above,
this Court should rema[nd] this matter to the Trial Court with
a finding that [Williams’s] statements were not voluntary.

¶29 As to the evidence Williams offered on voluntariness, the
superior court said:

The court entered an order regarding the claim that the
confession was coerced or that the statements were not
voluntarily made by the defendant, and the court does
recognize that evidence was presented on this issue, which I
had already ruled on.

Nothing that was presented today convinces the court that it
erred or made the wrong decision regarding the
voluntariness of the statements that were made, and so I am
re-affirming the order previously denying relief on the issue
of whether the statements were taken in violation of the Fifth
[] and 14th Amendment due to involuntariness.

¶30 The superior court thus made “specific findings of fact and . . .
state[d] expressly its conclusions of law relating to each issue presented.”
Pandeli, 242 Ariz. at 180 ¶ 3 (quoting Tankersley, 211 Ariz. at 324). And
Williams did not show the superior court abused its discretion when it
denied her petition. See Poblete, 227 Ariz. at 538 ¶ 1.

7
 STATE v. WILLIAMS
Decision of the Court

CONCLUSION

¶31 The court affirms.

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

8