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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

CHRISTOPHER JASON RICHARDSON, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 22-0321

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2020-143958-001

The Honorable Adam D. Driggs, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Casey Ball

Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix

By Aaron J. Moskowitz

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 9-12-2023
STATE v. RICHARDSON

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court, 

in which Judge Michael S. Catlett and Judge Maria Elena Cruz joined.

W E I N Z W E I G, Judge:

¶1 Christopher Richardson appeals his convictions and 

sentences for aggravated assault and leaving the scene of an accident. 

Because he shows no error, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Richardson struck a pedestrian while driving and fled the 

scene. He was later arrested and charged with two felony counts of 

aggravated assault and leaving the scene of an accident. Richardson faced 

a maximum sentence of 15 years on Count 1, see A.R.S. § 13–704(A) (class 3 

dangerous felony), and an aggravated term of 2.5 years on Count 2, see 

A.R.S. § 13–702(D) (class 5 felony).

¶3 For this criminal trial, the superior court seated eight jurors 

and two alternates—ten jurors total. The court excused one juror during 

the trial. Richardson argued self-defense. The jury convicted Richardson 

on both counts and found two aggravating factors. Richardson was 

sentenced to concurrent prison sentences of 5 years for aggravated assault,

and 1.5 years for leaving the scene of an accident. Richardson timely 

appealed. We have jurisdiction. See Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 9; A.R.S. 

§§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, –4033(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶4 Richardson argues he was deprived of a 12-person jury, in 

violation of the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. He did 

not raise this argument in the trial court, so we review for fundamental 

error. State v. Escalante, 245 Ariz. 135, 140, ¶ 12 (2018).

¶5 We discern none. Arizona law requires a 12-person jury for 

cases “in which a sentence of death or imprisonment for thirty years or 

more is authorized by law.” Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 23; A.R.S. § 21-102(A). All 

other cases are tried by 8-person juries. A.R.S. § 21-102(B). Here, 
STATE v. RICHARDSON

Decision of the Court

3

Richardson faced a maximum sentence of 15 years on Count 1, and 2.5 years 

on Count 2.

¶6 The Sixth Amendment guarantees that an “accused shall 

enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.” U.S. 

Const. amend. VI. As imposed on the states through the Fourteenth 

Amendment, the Sixth Amendment does not require a 12-person jury 

panel. See Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 86 (1970) (“We hold that the 12-

man panel is not a necessary ingredient of ‘trial by jury,’ and that 

respondent’s refusal to impanel more than the six members provided for 

by Florida law did not violate petitioner’s Sixth Amendment rights as 

applied to the States through the Fourteenth.”). The Arizona Supreme 

Court concluded the same. See State v. Soliz, 223 Ariz. 116, 118, ¶¶ 6–7 

(2009).

¶7 We are bound to follow this precedent. See Pool v. Superior 

Court, 139 Ariz. 98, 108 (1984) (“The decisions of the United States Supreme 

Court are binding with regard to the interpretation of the federal 

constitution.”); see also State v. Smyers, 207 Ariz. 314, 318, ¶ 15 n.4 (2004) 

(“The courts of this state are bound by the decisions of this court and do not 

have the authority to modify or disregard this court’s rulings.”).

¶8 Richardson’s reliance on Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S. Ct. 1390 

(2020), is unpersuasive. That case held only that due process demands a 

unanimous verdict for criminal trials. Ramos, 140 S. Ct. at 1397. Richardson 

has shown no error.

CONCLUSION

¶9 We affirm.