State v. Street ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                      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    UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 STREET, Appellant.
    No. 1 CA-CR 20-0547
    FILED 9-23-2021
    Appeal from the Superior Court in Yuma County
    No. S1400CR202000270
    The Honorable Roger A. Nelson, Judge
    CONVICTION AFFIRMED; SENTENCE AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED
    COUNSEL
    Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
    By Michael O’Toole
    Counsel for Appellee
    Yuma County Public Defender’s Office, Yuma
    By Robert J. Trebilcock
    Counsel for Appellant
    STATE v. STREET
    Decision of the Court
    MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Judge Michael J. Brown delivered the decision of the Court, in which
    Presiding Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge Brian Y. Furuya joined.
    B R O W N, Judge:
    ¶1            Michael Street appeals his conviction and sentence for
    aggravated assault. For the following reasons, we affirm the conviction and
    sentence, but we modify the sentencing order to confirm that Street was
    convicted of a class 5 felony.
    BACKGROUND
    ¶2             Officer Salcedo responded to reports of a disorderly person at
    a gas station and ultimately arrested Street. A second officer (“the victim”)
    arrived at the scene as backup, and as the officers placed Street in a patrol
    car he spit on the victim. A grand jury subsequently indicted Street on one
    count each of resisting arrest and aggravated assault.
    ¶3             Twenty days before trial, the State moved to amend the
    indictment’s incorrect reference to the aggravated assault charge as a class
    6 felony. See A.R.S. § 13-1204(F) (assault committed against a police officer
    that does not result in physical injury is a class 5 felony).1 Street objected to
    the proposed amendment, arguing it was “substantive” and “changes the
    nature of the charge altogether.” The superior court addressed the motion
    at the final pretrial conference and, agreeing with Street, suggested the State
    obtain an amended indictment reflecting the proper classification of the
    offense as a class 5 felony. The State did so, and Street was arraigned on
    the amended charge four days before trial.
    ¶4            The jury found Street guilty of aggravated assault but not
    guilty of resisting arrest. At sentencing, the superior court continued to
    incorrectly refer to the aggravated assault as a class 6 felony, but
    1      Street contends on appeal that aggravated assault committed against
    a police officer is a class 6 felony. However, the statute that specifically
    addresses aggravated assault committed on a police officer without causing
    physical injury classifies the offense as a class 5 felony. A.R.S. § 13-1204(F).
    2
    STATE v. STREET
    Decision of the Court
    nonetheless imposed the presumptive 1.5-year sentence for a class 5 felony.
    See A.R.S. § 13-702(D). Street timely appealed.
    DISCUSSION
    A.     Amended Indictment
    ¶5            Street argues the superior court violated his due process
    rights by permitting the State to seek an amended indictment on “new
    charges” on the “eve of trial.” We review the superior court’s ruling for an
    abuse of discretion. State v. Johnson, 
    198 Ariz. 245
    , 247, ¶ 4 (App. 2000). We
    will affirm the ruling if it is legally correct for any reason discernible in the
    record. State v. Flores, 
    218 Ariz. 407
    , 416, ¶ 26 n.14 (App. 2008).
    ¶6            A criminal defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to notice
    of the nature of the charges to enable him to prepare a defense. State v.
    Sanders, 
    205 Ariz. 208
    , 213, ¶ 16 (App. 2003), abrogated on other grounds by
    State. v. Freeney, 
    223 Ariz. 110
     (2009). Accordingly, Arizona Rule of
    Criminal Procedure (“Rule”) 13.1(a) requires a charging document be “a
    plain, concise statement of the facts sufficiently definite to inform the
    defendant of a charged offense.” Rule 13.5(b) provides, “Unless the
    defendant consents, a charge may be amended only to correct mistakes of
    fact or remedy formal or technical defects.” A defect is formal or technical
    “when its amendment does not operate to change the nature of the offense
    charged or to prejudice the defendant in any way.” State v. Johnson, 
    198 Ariz. 245
    , 247, ¶ 5 (App. 2000). An amendment changes the nature of an
    offense by either altering the factual allegations or by changing the “legal
    description of the elements of the offense.” Sanders, 
    205 Ariz. at 215, ¶ 25
    .
    Compliance with Rule 13.5(b) ensures an amended charge does not violate
    a defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights. See Freeney, 223 Ariz. at 114, ¶ 25
    (“Although it addresses policy concerns similar to those of the Sixth
    Amendment, Rule 13.5(b) is a prophylactic rule of criminal procedure.”).
    ¶7            Here, the amended indictment did not change the nature of
    the aggravated assault as originally alleged. The original and amended
    indictments both alleged that, in violation of A.R.S. §§ 13-1203(A)(3), and -
    1204(A)(8)(a), Street committed aggravated assault against the victim
    knowing or having reason to know the victim was a police officer engaged
    in the execution of his official duties. See A.R.S. §§ 13-1203(A)(3) (assault is
    committed by knowingly touching another person with the intent to injure,
    insult, or provoke such person), -1204(A)(8)(a) (committing assault against
    a peace officer elevates offense to aggravated assault). Thus, the amended
    indictment did not change the factual allegations or the legal description of
    3
    STATE v. STREET
    Decision of the Court
    the aggravated assault charge; it simply corrected the original indictment’s
    reference to the offense as a class 6 felony. See State v. Frierson, 
    146 Ariz. 287
    , 291, ¶ 14 (App. 1985) (summarily rejecting claim that superior court
    erred by amending indictment to correctly reflect charged offense as a class
    3, not class 5, felony); cf. Freeney, 223 Ariz. at 112–13, ¶¶ 12, 15, 20 (2009)
    (amending, without defendant’s consent, indictment’s allegation of
    violating § 13-1203(A)(3) to § 13-1203(A)(2) changed “the nature of the
    offense” and was therefore error). Street provides no authority that would
    prohibit such a revision under Rule 13.
    ¶8             Accordingly, we conclude the amendment properly corrected
    a technical defect in the original indictment, and Street’s consent to the
    revision was unnecessary under Rule 13.5. Although the superior court
    incorrectly reasoned it could not amend the indictment absent Street’s
    consent, the court did not abuse its discretion in its decision to permit a
    remand to the grand jury to procure an amended indictment. See Flores, 218
    Ariz. at 416, ¶ 26 n.14.
    B.     Sentencing
    ¶9             Street argues the superior court erred by imposing a 1.5-year
    sentence, noting that the superior court repeatedly referred at sentencing to
    the aggravated assault conviction as a class 6 felony—for which the
    presumptive sentence is one year under A.R.S. § 13-702(D). As explained
    above, however, Street was properly charged with, and convicted of, a class
    5 felony, for which the presumptive sentence is 1.5 years. See A.R.S.
    § 13-702(D). And Street understood the exposure he faced because of his
    conviction; at sentencing, he requested “a minimum sentence of .75
    years[,]” which is the minimum sentence for non-repetitive non-dangerous
    class 5 felony offenses. Id.
    ¶10            We conclude the superior court did not err by imposing the
    presumptive sentence for a class 5 felony; the court simply misspoke when
    referring to the conviction as a class 6 felony. See State v. Adamson, 
    136 Ariz. 250
    , 263 (1983) (“[A] defendant is not entitled to a perfect trial, just a fair
    one.”). Accordingly, we amend the sentencing order and minute entry to
    correctly reflect that Street was convicted of a class 5 felony.
    4
    STATE v. STREET
    Decision of the Court
    CONCLUSION
    ¶11          We affirm Street’s conviction. We also affirm the sentence
    imposed, as modified.
    AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
    FILED: AA
    5
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 1 CA-CR 20-0547

Filed Date: 9/23/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 9/23/2021