Court Opinion

ID: 9839857
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-14 16:04:25.638227+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:41:59.603105
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

                 RODNEY ARTHUR MATSON, Appellant.

                             No. 1 CA-CR 23-0095
                               FILED 9-14-2023

           Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County
                        No. P1300CR201601275
                 The Honorable Tina R. Ainley, Judge

                       AFFIRMED AS CORRECTED

                                   COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Alice Jones
Counsel for Appellee

The Zickerman Law Office, PLLC, Flagstaff
By Adam Zickerman
Counsel for Appellant
                            STATE v. MATSON
                            Decision of the Court

                       MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Cynthia J. Bailey delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge James B. Morse Jr. and Judge Brian Y. Furuya joined.

B A I L E Y, Judge:

¶1             Rodney Arthur Matson appeals the superior court’s finding
that he violated conditions of his probation and the court’s order to revoke
his probation on one count and sentence him to prison. Matson’s counsel
has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), advising this court that he has
searched the record and found no arguable issue to raise on appeal. He
requests this court independently review the record for fundamental error.
See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999) (stating that this court
reviews the entire record for reversible error). Matson was given an
opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona but did not do so.

¶2             We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section
9, of the Arizona Constitution, and Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”)
sections 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and 13-4033(A). See also State v. Regenold,
226 Ariz. 378, 378, ¶ 1 (2011) (holding that a defendant who accepts a plea
deal but later contests an alleged probation violation may appeal the result
of the probation violation hearing). Finding no reversible error, we affirm,
although we correct a clerical error in the court’s minute entry.

                 FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶3            In February 2017, Matson pleaded guilty to Attempted
Molestation of a Child, a class three felony in violation of A.R.S. § 13-
1410(A) (“Count I”), and two counts of Sexual Abuse Per Domestic
Violence, each a class three felony and dangerous crime against children, in
violation of A.R.S. §§ 13-1404(A) and 13-705 (“Counts II and III”).1 Matson
was sentenced to 6.5 years’ imprisonment in the Arizona Department of
Corrections (“ADOC”) for Count I followed by lifetime probation for
Counts II and III.

1    Under the plea agreement, Matson agreed to plead guilty and to
“make a full factual basis for the completed offenses.”

                                       2
                           STATE v. MATSON
                           Decision of the Court

¶4            A term of his plea agreement required Matson to “actively
participate in sex offender treatment and remain in such treatment at the
direction of the Probation Officer.” He also acknowledged that he was
bound to follow both the Uniform Conditions of Supervised Probation and
Special Conditions of Probation, including Sex Offender conditions.
Uniform Condition No. 11 required Matson to “actively participate and
cooperate in any program of counseling or assistance as determined by [the
adult probation department], or as required by law, given assessment
results, and/or [his] behavior.” Sex Offender Special Condition of
Probation No. 7 required Matson to “actively participate in sex offender
treatment and remain in such treatment at the direction of [his] probation
officer.”

¶5            In March 2022, Matson was released from ADOC after he re-
acknowledged receipt of the Sex Offender Special Conditions of Probation.
He was permitted to move and transfer his probation supervision to
Minnesota under the condition that he continue to abide by all conditions
of probation set forth by the superior court.

¶6             In November 2022, Matson’s Arizona probation officer filed a
petition to revoke his probation, alleging that Matson had violated Uniform
Condition No. 11 and Special Condition No. 7 of his probation. Matson was
arrested and extradited to Arizona.

¶7             The superior court held Matson’s violation of probation
hearing in December 2022. Matson’s Arizona probation officer testified that
she received a violation report from his probation officer in Minnesota,
which stated that Matson was discharged as non-compliant from sex
offender treatment in Minnesota. Matson’s Arizona probation officer
further testified that Matson was discharged for refusing to admit as part
of his treatment that he had committed a sexual offense, and that his failure
to comply violated Uniform Condition No. 11 and Special Condition No. 7
of his probation. Subsequently, Matson testified that he knew he had to
actively participate in his sex offender treatment as a term of his probation,
and that he told his treatment providers that he was not guilty of a sexual
offense.

¶8             The superior court found by a preponderance of the evidence
see State v. Alfaro, 127 Ariz. 578, 579 (1980), that Matson had violated
Uniform Condition No. 11 and Special Condition No. 7 of his probation.
The court revoked Matson’s probation on Count II and sentenced him to
five years’ incarceration in ADOC, with credit for 305 days of presentence

                                      3
                           STATE v. MATSON
                           Decision of the Court

incarceration, and continued lifetime probation upon release for Count III.2
Matson filed a timely notice of appeal.

                               DISCUSSION

¶9            We have reviewed the entire record for reversible error and
find none. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300; Clark, 196 Ariz. at 537, ¶ 30. The
evidence presented at the violation of probation hearing was substantial
and supports the court’s decision to revoke Matson’s probation, and the
sentence imposed was within the parameters of Matson’s plea agreement.
The proceedings were conducted in compliance with Matson’s
constitutional and statutory rights and conformed to the Arizona Rules of
Criminal Procedure. Matson was represented by counsel at all stages of the
proceedings, was present at all critical stages, and was given the
opportunity to speak at sentencing.

¶10           Upon the filing of this decision, Matson’s counsel shall inform
Matson of the status of his appeal and of his future options. Counsel has no
further obligations unless, upon review, counsel finds an issue that may be
appropriately submitted to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for
review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85 (1984). Matson has thirty
days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro per
motion for reconsideration or petition for review.

                              CONCLUSION

2       At sentencing and in the court’s February 15, 2023 minute entry, the
court stated that Matson’s five-year sentence was “mitigated.” However,
under the statutory sentencing parameters as indicated in the plea
agreement, Matson received a presumptive sentence. (Moreover, the court
did not make any findings of mitigation that would support a mitigated
sentence.) Accordingly, we correct the sentencing minute entry to reflect
that Matson’s sentence for Count II is a presumptive sentence.
Additionally, we note that the court advised Matson at sentencing that if he
failed to comply with the continued probation terms upon his release for
Count II, he would face an additional fifteen years’ incarceration. Under the
statutory sentencing parameters as explained in the plea agreement,
Matson would face a maximum of 7.5 years’ incarceration if he violated the
terms of his probation again.

                                      4
                          STATE v. MATSON
                          Decision of the Court

¶11           For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the superior court’s
finding that Matson violated the terms of his probation, and the court’s
decision to revoke Matson’s probation on Count II and sentence him to
incarceration in ADOC. We correct the court’s February 15, 2023 sentencing
minute entry to reflect that Matson’s sentence is for the presumptive term.

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

                                       5