Court Opinion

ID: 9839287
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-12 18:03:51.231425+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:42.953121
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 JASON RICHARDSON, Appellant.

                             No. 1 CA-CR 22-0321
                               FILED 9-12-2023

           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
                         STATE v. RICHARDSON
                           Decision of the Court

                      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,

                                      2
                           STATE v. RICHARDSON
                             Decision of the Court

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.

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

                                         3