Court Opinion

ID: 9380878
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-21 17:02:16.15296+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:28.239348
License: Public Domain

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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

                             No. 1 CA-CR 22-0333
                              FILED 3-21-2023

           Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County
                        No. P1300CR202000134
           The Honorable Debra R. Phelan, Judge Pro Tempore

                                  AFFIRMED

                                   COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Tucson
By Tanja K. Kelly
Counsel for Appellee

The Law Office of Kyle T. Green P.L.L.C., Tempe
By Kyle Green
Counsel for Appellant
                           STATE v. VAUGHAN
                           Decision of the Court

                      MEMORANDUM DECISION

Vice Chief Judge David B. Gass delivered the decision of the court, in which
Judge Brian Y. Furuya and Judge Maurice Portley 1 joined.

G A S S, Vice Chief Judge:

¶1           Christopher Douglas Vaughan appeals his conviction and the
imposition of probation for abduction of a child from a state agency. We
affirm.

               FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2            In December 2019, a Department of Child Safety (DCS)
investigator and Prescott Valley Police Department officers attempted to
serve Vaughan with a court order authorizing removal of his two minor
children. The investigator obtained the order because Vaughan had denied
DCS access to his children during an investigation into their welfare.

¶3             When Vaughan refused to comply with the order, the police
officers arrested him. The State charged him with abduction of a child from
a state agency. After trial, the jury found Vaughan guilty. The superior
court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Vaughan on four-years
of supervised probation. Vaughan timely appealed. This court has
jurisdiction under article VI, section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and
A.R.S. §§ 13-4031 and -4033.A.1.

                                ANALYSIS

¶4           Vaughan challenges the sufficiency of evidence supporting
his conviction. Specifically, he contends the State failed to prove he
knowingly violated the order.

¶5              This court reviews de novo whether sufficient evidence
supports a conviction. State v. Pena, 235 Ariz. 277, 279, ¶ 5 (2014). Evidence
is sufficient if the record contains “substantial evidence” of guilt, meaning
evidence “reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a guilty

1       The Honorable Maurice Portley, Retired Judge of the Court of
Appeals, Division One, has been authorized to sit in this matter under
article VI, section 3, of the Arizona Constitution.

                                      2
                            STATE v. VAUGHAN
                            Decision of the Court

verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (citation omitted). This court will
reverse “based on insufficiency of the evidence” only if a complete absence
of probative facts supports the conviction. State v. Burgess, 245 Ariz. 275,
278, ¶ 9 (App. 2018) (citation omitted).

¶6            Evidence is not insubstantial simply because reasonable
persons might have drawn a different conclusion from it. State v. Martinez,
226 Ariz. 221, 224, ¶ 15 (App. 2011). This court will not “reweigh evidence
or reassess the witnesses’ credibility.” State v. Buccheri-Bianca, 233 Ariz. 324,
334, ¶ 38 (App. 2013). In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, this
court tests the evidence “against the statutorily required elements of the
offense.” State v. Pena, 209 Ariz. 503, 505, ¶ 8 (App. 2005).

¶7            The applicable statute provides, in relevant part:

       A person commits abduction of a child from a state agency if,
       knowing or having reason to know that a child is entrusted by
       authority of law to the custody of a state agency, the person
       . . . keeps the child from the lawful custody of the state
       agency.

A.R.S. § 13-1310.A.1 (emphasis added).

¶8            Here, the evidence supports a reasonable conclusion
Vaughan knew or had reason to know DCS had lawful authority to take
custody of his children. The DCS investigator and police officers testified
they repeatedly told Vaughan about the order and gave him a copy of it. In
response, Vaughan stood in the doorway, physically blocked the
investigator and officers from entering his house, and said he would not
permit DCS to take his daughter. Indeed, an officer handed Vaughan a copy
of the order, Vaughan skimmed the first few pages and said, “I don’t care
what the paperwork says. You’re not taking my kids.”

¶9            True, Vaughan testified the police officers did not hand him
the order or arrest him before he had the opportunity to review it. But the
jury need not accept Vaughan’s testimony. See State v. Toney, 113 Ariz. 404,
408 (1976) (“Evidence is not insubstantial simply because testimony is
conflicting or reasonable persons may draw different conclusions from the
evidence.”); State v. Bronson, 204 Ariz. 321, 328, ¶ 34 (App. 2003) (noting a
jury is free to credit or discredit witness testimony) (citation omitted).
Regardless, Vaughan admitted the DCS investigator and police officers told
him about the order. Even if he did not see the order itself, the jury
reasonably could conclude Vaughan had reason to know of its existence.

                                       3
                            STATE v. VAUGHAN
                            Decision of the Court

¶10          Because substantial evidence supports Vaughan’s conviction,
we need not address his cursory argument the superior court should have
granted his motion for judgment of acquittal under Arizona Rule of
Criminal Procedure 20. See State v. Neal, 143 Ariz. 93, 98 (1984) (“A Rule 20
motion is designed to test the sufficiency of the state’s evidence.”); Ariz. R.
Crim. P. 20(a)(1) (requiring a judgment of acquittal if no substantial
evidence supports the conviction).

                                CONCLUSION

¶11           We affirm.

                           AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
                           FILED: AA

                                          4