Charlson v. State ( 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    UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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
    FRANK WILLIAM CHARLSON,
    Appellant,
    v.
    STATE OF ARIZONA,
    Appellee.
    No. 1 CA-HC 20-0002
    FILED 5-11-2021
    Appeal from the Superior Court in Coconino County
    No. S0300CV201900540
    The Honorable Cathleen Brown Nichols, Judge
    AFFIRMED
    COUNSEL
    Frank William Charlson, Kingman
    Appellant
    Coconino County Attorney's Office, Flagstaff
    By Mark Dillon Huston
    Counsel for Appellee
    CHARLSON v. STATE
    Decision of the Court
    MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Judge James B. Morse Jr. delivered the decision of the Court, in which
    Presiding Judge D. Steven Williams and Judge Jennifer B. Campbell joined.
    M O R S E, Judge:
    ¶1             Frank Charlson appeals from an order denying his petition
    for a writ of habeas corpus. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
    FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
    ¶2             In 2004, Charlson pled guilty to attempted child molestation,
    a class 3 felony, and sexual conduct with a minor, a class 2 felony. He was
    sentenced to 20-years imprisonment, followed by a lifetime term of
    intensive probation. This Court dismissed Charlson's direct appeal from
    the superior court's order denying his motion to withdraw from the plea.
    State v. Charlson, 1 CA-CR 05-0005 (Ariz. App. Jan. 10, 2005) (order). In 2006,
    Charlson filed a petition for post-conviction relief. The superior court
    denied the petition and we declined review. See State v. Charlson, 1 CA-CR
    06-0791 PRPC (Ariz. App. Aug. 23, 2007) (order).
    ¶3             Charlson filed the instant petition in 2019. He asserts the
    superior court (1) erred in imposing a consecutive term of lifetime intensive
    probation, (2) "lacked jurisdiction to classify the attempted offense as a class
    2 felony," (3) denied him the right to speak at sentencing, and (4) erred in
    requiring him to register as a sex offender.
    ¶4              The superior court treated Charlson's claims as a petition for
    post-conviction relief. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 33.3 (providing that any request
    for relief challenging the validity of a sentence must be treated as a "petition
    for post-conviction relief").1 The court denied the petition, reasoning that it
    was "both untimely and successive." See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 33.2(a), 33.4(b)(3).
    1       "Effective January 1, 2020, our supreme court amended the post-
    conviction relief rules. The amendments apply to all cases pending on the
    effective date unless a court determines that applying the rule or
    amendment would be infeasible or work an injustice." State v. Mendoza, 
    249 Ariz. 180
    , 182, ¶ 1 n.1 (App. 2020) (cleaned up). We cite the current rules
    unless otherwise noted.
    2
    CHARLSON v. STATE
    Decision of the Court
    Charlson timely appealed and we have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. §§
    12-120.21(A)(1) and -2101(A)(11)(a).2
    DISCUSSION
    ¶5            We review the denial of a writ of habeas corpus for abuse of
    discretion. State v. Cowles, 
    207 Ariz. 8
    , 9, ¶ 3 (App. 2004). A court abuses its
    discretion "where the record fails to provide substantial support for its
    decision or the court commits an error of law in reaching the decision."
    Id. (quoting Files v.
    Bernal, 
    200 Ariz. 64
    , 65, ¶ 2 (App. 2001)).
    ¶6            As an initial matter, the superior court did not abuse its
    discretion by treating the instant petition as one for post-conviction relief.
    Although styled as a habeas corpus petition, Charlson is challenging
    aspects of his sentence and the post-conviction rules apply. See Ariz. R.
    Crim. P. 33.3, cmt. ("[I]f a convicted defendant files a petition for a writ of
    habeas corpus . . . that seeks relief available under Rule 33, the petition or
    application will be treated as a petition for post-conviction relief."); In re
    Oppenheimer, 
    95 Ariz. 292
    , 297 (1964) ("In Arizona, the writ of habeas corpus
    may be used only to review matters affecting a court's jurisdiction.").
    ¶7              We note that the current post-conviction rules require a
    defendant to explain why a non-precluded claim was not raised "in a
    previous notice or petition" or "in a timely manner." Ariz. R. Crim. P.
    33.2(b)(1). As Charlson's petition was filed before the rules were amended,
    he had no reason to provide any such explanation. Though we could
    remand this matter to provide Charlson an opportunity to comply, we
    conclude that remanding this case would result in a waste of judicial
    resources as Charlson has not shown any entitlement to relief. See State v.
    Emery, 
    141 Ariz. 549
    , 553 (1984) ("To remand in such cases would be
    inefficient if not futile. Judicial economy requires that we intervene when
    the record is . . . as clear as it is in the instant case."); State v. Waicelunas, 1
    CA-CR 19-0240 PRPC, 
    2020 WL 5796172
    , at *2, ¶¶ 6, 8 (Ariz. App. Sept. 29,
    2020) (mem. decision) (reviewing the merits of second post-conviction
    petition filed prior to the rule changes). Therefore, we exercise our
    discretion and address the merits of Charlson's claims.
    2      Although the superior court decided this case as a petition for post-
    conviction relief, the court did not "file it in the record of each original case
    to which it pertains." Ariz. R. Crim. P. 33.4(b)(4)(A). Accordingly, we treat
    this proceeding as an appeal, see A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(11)(a), rather than a
    petition for review, see A.R.S. § 13-4239(C).
    3
    CHARLSON v. STATE
    Decision of the Court
    A.     Probation.
    ¶8           Charlson makes several arguments challenging his
    subsequent probation term—that the court lacked the authority to impose
    both probation and prison, that his prior felonies made him ineligible for
    probation, and the probation officer did not recommend intensive
    probation. His assertions fail.
    ¶9             Charlson cites State v. Kraft, 
    122 Ariz. 527
    (App. 1979), for the
    proposition that courts lack the authority to sentence a defendant to prison
    and probation. But after Kraft, our supreme court held that a trial court may
    "impose a prison term and probation at the same time." State v. Jones, 
    124 Ariz. 24
    , 27 (1979) (relying on A.R.S. § 13-903); see also State v. Bowsher, 
    225 Ariz. 586
    , 590, ¶ 21 (2010) (noting that Jones allows a court, when sentencing
    for multiple convictions, "to combine a prison sentence with subsequent
    probation"). Thus, courts have the authority to impose a probation tail
    consecutive to a prison term.
    ¶10            We also reject Charlson's argument that he was not probation
    eligible due to his prior convictions. Charlson's plea agreement did not
    include an admission of prior felonies for the purpose of sentencing
    enhancement, and the plea served "to amend the original charge(s) without
    the filing of additional pleadings." The State's dismissal of a prior felony
    allegation does not preclude the trial court from considering prior felonies
    as an aggravating circumstance. State v. Jackson, 
    130 Ariz. 195
    , 196 (App.
    1981). Thus, Charlson remained probation eligible under the applicable
    statutes. See A.R.S. §§ 13-604(C) (2003), -604.01(I), (L)(2) (2003).
    ¶11          Finally, this Court previously held that the probation
    department's recommendation is not a prerequisite to an intensive
    probation placement. See State v. Woodruff, 
    196 Ariz. 359
    , 360, ¶ 7 (App.
    2000). Accordingly, Charlson's conviction for attempted child molestation
    was probation eligible.
    B.     Charlson's Remaining Arguments.
    ¶12            First, although the sentencing court orally referred to
    Charlson's conviction for attempted child molestation as a class 2 felony,
    the sentencing order correctly designated it a class 3 felony. The record
    shows the superior court misspoke. When a discrepancy between an oral
    pronouncement of sentence and a sentencing minute entry can be resolved
    on the record, it is not necessary to remand for clarification or correction.
    State v. Bowles, 
    173 Ariz. 214
    , 216 (App. 1992).
    4
    CHARLSON v. STATE
    Decision of the Court
    ¶13          Second, Charlson was not denied the opportunity to speak
    before sentence was imposed—the court asked if there was any reason
    sentence should not be pronounced and his counsel said no. See State v.
    Davis, 
    112 Ariz. 140
    , 141 (1975) (finding no denial of allocution where
    defense counsel stated there was no reason judgment should not be
    entered).
    ¶14            Third, Charlson was not denied notice of the requirement to
    register as a sex offender. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 26.10(b)(3) ("When the court
    pronounces sentence, it must . . . explain to the defendant the terms of the
    sentence or probation . . . ."). Again, even if the sentencing court misspoke
    when it orally referenced "A.R.S. § 13-3621" rather than the registration
    statute, A.R.S. § 13-3821, Charlson's plea agreement explicitly required
    registration, the court ordered registration at sentencing, and the
    sentencing order required registration. We find no reversable error. See
    State v. Maddasion, 
    24 Ariz. App. 492
    , 496 (1975) (affirming despite trial
    judge's technical error when pronouncing sentence).
    CONCLUSION
    ¶15           For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.
    AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
    FILED: AA
    5