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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

AUSTIN ALLEN MILES, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 21-0280

Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County

No. V1300CR201980460

The Honorable Michael R. Bluff, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Tucson

By Alexander M. Taber

Counsel for Appellee

Law Office of Nicole Countryman, Phoenix

By Nicole Countryman

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 2-22-2022
STATE v. MILES

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Peter B. Swann delivered the decision of the court, in which Presiding 

Judge Cynthia J. Bailey and Judge D. Steven Williams joined.

S W A N N, Judge:

¶1 A jury convicted Austin Miles of failure to register as a sex 

offender. Miles appeals the superior court’s denial of his motion for a

judgment of acquittal, arguing there was insufficient evidence to support 

the conviction. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 In 2011, Miles was convicted under Article 134 of the Uniform 

Code of Military Justice for possession of child pornography while serving 

in the United States Navy. He was sentenced to a three-year term of 

imprisonment. After his release in 2013, Miles was required to register as a 

sex offender. In November 2013, Miles registered as a sex offender in 

California where he resided.

¶3 In February 2015, Miles moved to Flagstaff, Arizona. In 

March 2015, he registered as a sex offender in Coconino County. When he 

registered, he initialed an acknowledgment that he was required to register 

within 10 days after entering and remaining in any county of the state

pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-3821(A). By May 2015, Miles had vacated his 

apartment in Flagstaff, but did not register a new address within the county 

or elsewhere.

¶4 After an investigation by the Flagstaff Police Department and

Yavapai County Sherriff’s Office, they believed Miles was residing with his 

girlfriend at an RV park in Yavapai County. In November 2015, a detective 

with the Yavapai County Sherriff’s Office observed Miles leave his 

girlfriend’s trailer. The police conducted a traffic stop and arrested Miles.

¶5 Miles was charged with failure to register as a sex offender

under A.R.S. § 13-3821(A). After the state presented its case-in-chief, Miles 

moved for a judgment of acquittal pursuant to Ariz. R. Crim. P. (“Rule”) 

20(a). Miles argued that he was entitled to a judgment of acquittal because 

the state failed to prove he resided in Yavapai County. The court denied 
STATE v. MILES

Decision of the Court

3

his motion. The jury found Miles guilty as charged, and the court sentenced 

him to a mitigated one-year term of imprisonment. Miles appeals.

DISCUSSION

¶6 On appeal, Miles contends that the superior court erred in 

denying his Rule 20 motion because the state failed to present substantial 

evidence that he was required to register as a sex offender. Miles also 

contends that the state failed to prove that his naval conviction would have 

been an offense under Arizona law if it had been committed here. Because

Miles failed to raise either of these arguments in the superior court, he must 

show fundamental error. See State v. Gendron, 168 Ariz. 153, 155 (1991) 

(noting the failure to raise an issue at trial waives all but fundamental error). 

Miles bears the burden of establishing “both that fundamental error 

occurred and that the error caused him prejudice.” State v. Henderson, 210 

Ariz. 561, 568, ¶ 22 (2005). We will not find fundamental error where the

complaining party invited the error. State v. Logan, 200 Ariz. 564, 565–66, 

¶ 9 (2001).

¶7 As relevant here, A.R.S. § 13-3821(A)(13)1 provides:

A. A person who has been convicted of . . . an offense 

committed in another jurisdiction that if committed in this 

state would be a violation or attempted violation of any of the 

following offenses . . . or who is required to register by the 

convicting or adjudicating jurisdiction, . . . after entering and 

remaining for at least seventy-two hours in any county of this 

state, shall register with the sheriff of that county: . . .

13. Sexual exploitation of a minor pursuant to § 13-3553.

Accordingly, the statute requires registration if: (1) the elements of Article 

134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice necessarily prove sexual 

exploitation of a minor under A.R.S. § 13-3553, or (2) Miles was required to 

register by the Navy. A.R.S. § 13-3821(A); see State v. Kuntz, 209 Ariz. 276,

279, ¶ 9 (App. 2004); State v. Lowery, 230 Ariz. 536, 541, ¶¶ 15–16 (App. 

2012).

¶8 Miles does not argue or establish that the superior court 

committed fundamental error. See State v. Moreno-Medrano, 218 Ariz. 349, 

354, ¶ 17 (App. 2008) (noting that failure to argue fundamental error may 

1 We cite to the current version of applicable statutes absent any 

change material to this decision.
STATE v. MILES

Decision of the Court

4

result in waiver). At trial, Miles testified that he was required to register as 

a sex offender because of his naval conviction. Thus, if any error existed, it 

was invited.

¶9 In view of Miles’s testimony at trial, the potential dissimilarity 

between the two bodies of law is immaterial. Aside from Miles’s testimony 

that he was required to register as a sex offender, the state presented 

substantial evidence that Miles was required to register under A.R.S. § 13-

3821(A). The parties stipulated that Miles had a prior conviction that 

required him to register as a sex offender, and he had in fact registered two 

times before. The state also presented evidence that Miles initialed an 

acknowledgement that he was required to register, and Miles admitted to a 

Yavapai County detective that he was required to register. Thus, we need 

not determine whether the elements of Article 134 of the Uniform Code of 

Military Justice necessarily prove sexual exploitation of a minor under 

A.R.S. § 13-3553. See Lowery, 230 Ariz. at 541, ¶¶ 15–16.

CONCLUSION

¶10 We affirm.