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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

RODNEY ARTHUR MATSON, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 23-0095 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County

No. P1300CR201601275

The Honorable Tina R. Ainley, Judge

AFFIRMED AS CORRECTED

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

FILED 9-14-2023
STATE v. MATSON

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Cynthia J. Bailey delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge James B. Morse Jr. and Judge Brian Y. Furuya joined.

B A I L E Y, Judge:

¶1 Rodney Arthur Matson appeals the superior court’s finding 

that he violated conditions of his probation and the court’s order to revoke 

his probation on one count and sentence him to prison. Matson’s counsel 

has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), advising this court that he has 

searched the record and found no arguable issue to raise on appeal. He 

requests this court independently review the record for fundamental error. 

See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999) (stating that this court 

reviews the entire record for reversible error). Matson was given an 

opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona but did not do so.

¶2 We have appellate jurisdiction 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). See also State v. Regenold, 

226 Ariz. 378, 378, ¶ 1 (2011) (holding that a defendant who accepts a plea 

deal but later contests an alleged probation violation may appeal the result 

of the probation violation hearing). Finding no reversible error, we affirm, 

although we correct a clerical error in the court’s minute entry.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶3 In February 2017, Matson pleaded guilty to Attempted 

Molestation of a Child, a class three felony in violation of A.R.S. § 13-

1410(A) (“Count I”), and two counts of Sexual Abuse Per Domestic 

Violence, each a class three felony and dangerous crime against children, in 

violation of A.R.S. §§ 13-1404(A) and 13-705 (“Counts II and III”).

1 Matson 

was sentenced to 6.5 years’ imprisonment in the Arizona Department of 

Corrections (“ADOC”) for Count I followed by lifetime probation for 

Counts II and III.

1 Under the plea agreement, Matson agreed to plead guilty and to 

“make a full factual basis for the completed offenses.”
STATE v. MATSON

Decision of the Court

3

¶4 A term of his plea agreement required Matson to “actively 

participate in sex offender treatment and remain in such treatment at the 

direction of the Probation Officer.” He also acknowledged that he was 

bound to follow both the Uniform Conditions of Supervised Probation and 

Special Conditions of Probation, including Sex Offender conditions. 

Uniform Condition No. 11 required Matson to “actively participate and 

cooperate in any program of counseling or assistance as determined by [the 

adult probation department], or as required by law, given assessment 

results, and/or [his] behavior.” Sex Offender Special Condition of 

Probation No. 7 required Matson to “actively participate in sex offender 

treatment and remain in such treatment at the direction of [his] probation 

officer.”

¶5 In March 2022, Matson was released from ADOC after he reacknowledged receipt of the Sex Offender Special Conditions of Probation. 

He was permitted to move and transfer his probation supervision to 

Minnesota under the condition that he continue to abide by all conditions 

of probation set forth by the superior court. 

¶6 In November 2022, Matson’s Arizona probation officer filed a 

petition to revoke his probation, alleging that Matson had violated Uniform 

Condition No. 11 and Special Condition No. 7 of his probation. Matson was 

arrested and extradited to Arizona.

¶7 The superior court held Matson’s violation of probation 

hearing in December 2022. Matson’s Arizona probation officer testified that 

she received a violation report from his probation officer in Minnesota, 

which stated that Matson was discharged as non-compliant from sex 

offender treatment in Minnesota. Matson’s Arizona probation officer 

further testified that Matson was discharged for refusing to admit as part 

of his treatment that he had committed a sexual offense, and that his failure 

to comply violated Uniform Condition No. 11 and Special Condition No. 7 

of his probation. Subsequently, Matson testified that he knew he had to 

actively participate in his sex offender treatment as a term of his probation, 

and that he told his treatment providers that he was not guilty of a sexual 

offense. 

¶8 The superior court found by a preponderance of the evidence

see State v. Alfaro, 127 Ariz. 578, 579 (1980), that Matson had violated 

Uniform Condition No. 11 and Special Condition No. 7 of his probation. 

The court revoked Matson’s probation on Count II and sentenced him to 

five years’ incarceration in ADOC, with credit for 305 days of presentence 
STATE v. MATSON

Decision of the Court

4

incarceration, and continued lifetime probation upon release for Count III.

2

Matson filed a timely notice of appeal.

DISCUSSION

¶9 We have reviewed the entire record for reversible error and 

find none. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300; Clark, 196 Ariz. at 537, ¶ 30. The 

evidence presented at the violation of probation hearing was substantial 

and supports the court’s decision to revoke Matson’s probation, and the 

sentence imposed was within the parameters of Matson’s plea agreement. 

The proceedings were conducted in compliance with Matson’s 

constitutional and statutory rights and conformed to the Arizona Rules of 

Criminal Procedure. Matson was represented by counsel at all stages of the 

proceedings, was present at all critical stages, and was given the 

opportunity to speak at sentencing.

¶10 Upon the filing of this decision, Matson’s counsel shall inform 

Matson of the status of his appeal and of his future options. Counsel has no 

further obligations unless, upon review, counsel finds an issue that may be 

appropriately submitted to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for 

review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85 (1984). Matson has thirty 

days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro per

motion for reconsideration or petition for review.

CONCLUSION

2 At sentencing and in the court’s February 15, 2023 minute entry, the 

court stated that Matson’s five-year sentence was “mitigated.” However, 

under the statutory sentencing parameters as indicated in the plea 

agreement, Matson received a presumptive sentence. (Moreover, the court 

did not make any findings of mitigation that would support a mitigated 

sentence.) Accordingly, we correct the sentencing minute entry to reflect 

that Matson’s sentence for Count II is a presumptive sentence. 

Additionally, we note that the court advised Matson at sentencing that if he

failed to comply with the continued probation terms upon his release for 

Count II, he would face an additional fifteen years’ incarceration. Under the 

statutory sentencing parameters as explained in the plea agreement,

Matson would face a maximum of 7.5 years’ incarceration if he violated the 

terms of his probation again.
STATE v. MATSON

Decision of the Court

5

¶11 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the superior court’s 

finding that Matson violated the terms of his probation, and the court’s 

decision to revoke Matson’s probation on Count II and sentence him to 

incarceration in ADOC. We correct the court’s February 15, 2023 sentencing 

minute entry to reflect that Matson’s sentence is for the presumptive term.