State v. Cramer

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

MICHAEL CRAMER, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 22-0063
FILED 4-25-2023

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2020-001790-001
The Honorable Eartha K. Washington, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

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

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix
By Dawnese C. Hustad
Counsel for Appellant
 STATE v. CRAMER
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Judge Cynthia J. Bailey and Vice Chief Judge David B. Gass 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 Michael
Cramer has advised the court that, after searching the entire record, she has
found no arguable question of law and asks this court to conduct an Anders
review of the record. Cramer was given the opportunity to file a
supplemental brief pro se but did not do so. This court has reviewed the
record and found no reversible error. Accordingly, Cramer’s convictions
and resulting sentences are affirmed.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 In early February 2019, the then 12-year old victim told a
school employee that her grandfather was sexually assaulting her. The
victim had lived with her grandfather (Cramer) most of her life. The school
employee called the police. Forensic interviews of the victim revealed a
long history of Cramer inappropriately touching the victim, starting when
she was six years old. The incidents took place in Maricopa County. A nurse
practitioner then conducted a sexual assault examination of victim.

¶3 The State charged Cramer with five counts of sexual conduct
with a minor, each a Class 2 felony and a dangerous crime against children
(DCAC), and one count of furnishing obscene or harmful items to minors,
a Class 4 felony. The charges referenced specific acts at various times from
2012 to 2019.1

¶4 The State offered a plea agreement of seven to ten years in
prison and lifetime probation with sex offender registration and treatment.
Cramer rejected the plea, maintaining his innocence. Following a hearing,
the court granted in part and denied in part the State’s motion to admit

1Another count involving a different victim was severed on Cramer’s
motion and later dismissed without prejudice and is not at issue here.

2
 STATE v. CRAMER
Decision of the Court

evidence of Cramer’s uncharged conduct with the victim. See Ariz. R. Evid.
404(c).

¶5 At trial, the victim testified to facts supporting the charges
and the State played portions of the recorded forensic interviews. The State
also called as witnesses the investigating detective, forensic interviewers,
Cramer’s wife and the nurse practitioner who performed the sexual assault
examination. After the State rested, Cramer called his daughter (the victim’s
mother) to testify. Cramer also testified, maintaining his innocence. Cramer
twice moved for a judgment of acquittal, which the court denied. See Ariz.
R. Crim. P. 20. After closing arguments, and a day and a half of
deliberations, the jury found Cramer guilty of the five counts of sexual
conduct with a minor and not guilty of the one count of furnishing obscene
or harmful items to minors.

¶6 At sentencing, after considering a pre-sentence report and
other information provided, the court sentenced Cramer to 15 years each
for four of the convictions and a term of life with the possibility of release
after 35 years for the fifth. All the sentences are flat-time and consecutive.
The court properly awarded Cramer 75 days of pre-sentence incarceration
credit on the first conviction and imposed financial consequences.

¶7 This court has jurisdiction over Cramer’s timely appeal
pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona
Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) sections 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031 and 13-4033(A)
(2023).2

DISCUSSION

¶8 The record shows that Cramer was represented by counsel at
all stages of the proceedings and that counsel was present at all critical
stages. The court properly instructed the 12-person jury on the elements of
the charged offenses, the State’s burden of proof, Cramer’s presumption of
innocence and other applicable law. The record contains substantial
evidence supporting the verdicts. The sentences imposed were within
statutory limits. The award of presentence incarceration credit was
accurate. From the court’s review of the record, all the proceedings were
conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.

2Absent material revisions after the relevant dates, statutes and rules cited
refer to the current version unless otherwise indicated.

3
 STATE v. CRAMER
Decision of the Court

CONCLUSION

¶9 This court has read and considered counsel’s brief and has
searched the record provided for reversible error and has found none. Leon,
104 Ariz. at 300; State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537 ¶ 30 (App. 1999).
Accordingly, Cramer’s convictions and resulting sentences are affirmed.

¶10 Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel is directed to
inform Cramer of the status of the appeal and of his future options. Defense
counsel has no further obligations unless, upon review, counsel identifies
an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by
petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85 (1984). Cramer
has 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a
pro se motion for reconsideration or petition for review.

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

4