Court Opinion

ID: 9929060
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-01 18:03:07.435743+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:05:40.315111
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

             ALI-MOHAMMAD ZAMANZADEH, Appellant.

                             No. 1 CA-CR 23-0080
                               FILED 2-1-2024

           Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                        No. CR2022-001706-001
                  The Honorable Mark H. Brain, Judge

                                  AFFIRMED

                                   COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Brian R. Coffman
Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix
By Aaron J. Moskowitz
Counsel for Appellant
                         STATE v. ZAMANZADEH
                           Decision of the Court

                       MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge D. Steven Williams delivered the Court’s decision, in which
Presiding Judge Daniel J. Kiley and Judge Kent E. Cattani joined.

W I L L I A M S, Judge:

¶1           Defendant Ali-Mohammad Zamanzadeh appeals his
conviction and probation grant for one count of sexual abuse. For the
following reasons, we affirm.

               FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2             After a female ultrasound technologist reported that
Zamanzadeh had groped her breast while she examined his arm, the State
charged Zamanzadeh with one count of sexual abuse, a class 5 felony.
Under the indictment, Zamanzadeh faced a possible aggravated sentence
of 2.5 years’ imprisonment. See A.R.S. § 13-702(D) (class 5 felony).

¶3            Without objection, the court impaneled ten jurors for an
eight-person jury (which included two alternates). The jury convicted
Zamanzadeh as charged, and the court suspended the imposition of a
sentence, placing him on supervised probation for a term of ten years.

¶4           Zamanzadeh timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under
Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S.
§§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and -4033(A).

                                DISCUSSION

¶5             Zamanzadeh argues the trial court deprived him of the right
to a twelve-person jury in violation of the Sixth Amendment of the United
States Constitution. Because Zamanzadeh did not raise this claim in the trial
court, we review only for fundamental, prejudicial error. See State v.
Escalante, 245 Ariz. 135, 140, ¶ 12 (2018). The “[i]mproper denial of a
twelve-person jury” constitutes “fundamental error that may provide a
basis for relief even if not raised in the trial court.” State v. Kuck, 212 Ariz.
232, 233, ¶ 8 (App. 2006).

¶6             The Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants “the
right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.” U.S. Const. amend.

                                       2
                        STATE v. ZAMANZADEH
                          Decision of the Court

VI. Applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, the Sixth
Amendment does not require a twelve-person jury panel. See Williams v.
Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 86 (1970) (“hold[ing] that the 12-man panel is not a
necessary ingredient of ‘trial by jury,’” and a state’s “refusal to impanel
more than [] six members . . . did not violate [a defendant’s] Sixth
Amendment rights”); see also State v. Soliz, 223 Ariz. 116, 118, ¶¶ 6-7 (2009)
(recognizing the United States Supreme Court’s holding in Williams and
explaining that under Arizona law, the legislature has “reserved the
twelve-person jury only for the most serious offenses,” as measured “by the
potential sentence upon conviction”); A.R.S. § 21-102(A)-(B) (providing for
twelve-person juries in criminal cases “in which a sentence of death or
imprisonment for thirty years or more is authorized by law” and
eight-person juries in “any other criminal case”).

¶7              Zamanzadeh acknowledges the holding in Williams but
argues it has been implicitly overruled based on Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S.
Ct. 1390, 1397 (2020), which holds that the Sixth Amendment right to a jury
trial in criminal cases includes the right to a unanimous verdict.
Zamanzadeh also acknowledges, however, the “modern rule” that we are
bound by United States Supreme Court authority until it has been expressly
overruled by that court. See Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/Am. Exp. Inc., 490
U.S. 477, 484 (1989). Accordingly, Zamanzadeh has not established a basis
for relief in this court.

                               CONCLUSION

¶8            We affirm.

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

                                         3