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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE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 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

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 C ounsel for Appellant FILED 9-12-2023STATE 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 conviction s and sentences for aggravated assault and leaving the scene of an accident. Because he show s 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 acciden t

. 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, t he 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 convict ed Richardson on both counts and found two aggravating factors. Richardson was sentenced to concurrent prison sentences of 5 years for aggr avated 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 t he Sixth Amendment of the United States C onstitution. He did not raise this argument in the trial court, so w e review for fundamental

error

. State v. Escalante , 245 Ariz. 135, 140, ¶ 12 (2018). ¶5 We discern no ne

. 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, t h e Sixth Amendment does not require a 12

- person jury panel

. See Williams v. Florida , 3 9 9 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 th is precedent. See Pool v. Superior Court , 139 Ariz. 98, 108 (1984) (“ T he 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) (“ T he 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 show n no error

. CONCLUSION ¶9 We affirm.