Court Opinion

ID: 9379038
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-14 15:02:45.807267+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:36.109961
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

                      SCOTT ALLEN BECK, Appellant.

                             No. 1 CA-CR 21-0535
                               FILED 3-14-2023

           Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                        No. CR2018-111406-001
               The Honorable Rosa Mroz, Judge, Deceased

                       AFFIRMED AS CORRECTED

                                   COUNSEL

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

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix
By Thomas K. Baird
Counsel for Appellant
                              STATE v. BECK
                            Decision of the Court

                      MEMORANDUM DECISION

Chief Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz and Judge Angela K. Paton joined.

C A T T A N I, Chief Judge:

¶1            Scott Allen Beck appeals his convictions of two counts of
sexual exploitation of a minor under the age of 15 and the resulting
sentences. Beck’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969),
certifying that, after a diligent search of the record, he found no arguable
question of law that was not frivolous. Counsel asks this court to search the
record for reversible error. See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App.
1999). Beck did not file a supplemental brief but asked counsel to raise the
issue of admission of Exhibits 65 and 89 at trial. After reviewing the record
and considering the issues raised by Beck, we find no error and thus affirm
Beck’s convictions and sentences as corrected below to reflect that Beck’s
sentences are to be served consecutively.

             FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2            Beck was convicted by a jury of two out of ten charged counts
of sexual exploitation of a minor under the age of fifteen years, and he was
sentenced to prison.

¶3           The State presented the following evidence relevant to the
convictions. Beck was employed by a telecommunications company. In
late August 2021, a fellow employee found an external hard drive and a
company-issued laptop in a Phoenix workspace that someone using Beck’s
security badge had accessed a few days before. When the employee
plugged in the hard drive, he discovered that it contained photographs of
nude children. He reported the situation to his manager, who contacted
police.

¶4            The employer’s investigation revealed that numerous
photographs of children—some clothed and some nude—had been cached
on the laptop under Beck’s password-protected profile. The police’s
investigation confirmed that the hard drive had been plugged into the
laptop. The police found sexually exploitative photographs of children on

                                      2
                             STATE v. BECK
                           Decision of the Court

both devices, along with videos of a man masturbating to images of
children. The man had tattoos and skin discoloration consistent with Beck,
wore an identification badge showing Beck’s face, and on one occasion
ejaculated on an image of a child.

¶5            Police searched Beck’s home and seized numerous electronic
devices, including a thumb drive that contained sexually exploitative
images of children. The search also revealed two bags, which one officer
termed “masturbation kits.” The kits included sex toys, child-sized
underwear, and photographs of children. A later search further revealed a
box containing numerous photographs of children. A search of Beck’s cell
phone also revealed sexually exploitative material.

¶6            Police showed a selection of the sexually exploitative images
from the hard drive and the thumb drive to a pediatrician trained in
estimating children’s ages. With respect to the images relevant here, the
pediatrician opined that the children depicted were under the ages of 13
and 5 years, respectively.

                               DISCUSSION

¶7            The record reflects that Beck was afforded all constitutional
and statutory rights, and that the proceedings were conducted in
accordance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. He was present
and represented by counsel at all critical stages. The jury was properly
composed and instructed, and there is no evidence of misconduct. See
A.R.S. § 21-102(A).

¶8             The jury’s verdicts were supported by sufficient evidence. “A
person commits sexual exploitation of a minor by knowingly . . .
[d]istributing, transporting, exhibiting, receiving, selling, purchasing,
electronically transmitting, possessing or exchanging any visual depiction
in which a minor is engaged in exploitive exhibition or other sexual
conduct.” A.R.S. § 13-3553(A)(2). “‘Exploitive exhibition’ means the actual
or simulated exhibition of the genitals or pubic or rectal areas of any person
for the purpose of sexual stimulation of the viewer.” A.R.S. § 13-3551(5).
Here, evidence showed that Beck used images of children for sexual
gratification, and that the charged images were found on devices associated
with him and depicted exploitive exhibition of children under the age of 15
years.

¶9            We detect no fundamental error with respect to the admission
of Exhibits 65 and 89. Exhibit 65 is a typed list of the charged images’
original file names and hash values. The court appropriately found

                                      3
                              STATE v. BECK
                            Decision of the Court

sufficient foundation because an officer created the list from forensic
evidence. Beck also objected to Exhibit 89, a thumb drive containing the
charged images shown to the jury, because that thumb drive was not the
same device viewed by the pediatrician—the State had instead re-extracted
the images from the source devices. But both the pediatrician and the
officer who presented the images to the pediatrician testified that the
Exhibit 89 images were consistent with the images the pediatrician had
reviewed. The court overruled the objection and also noted (outside the
presence of the jury) that the expert testimony on age was not necessary in
view of the obvious youth of the images’ subjects. Beck has not established
fundamental error.

¶10           The court properly sentenced Beck to 14-year prison terms for
each conviction and credited him for presentence incarceration. See A.R.S.
§§ 13-3553(C), -705(F), -712(B). We do, however, note one error in the
sentencing minute entry. Although the court specified in its oral
pronouncement that the prison terms were consecutive, and the sentencing
minute entry accordingly applied the presentence incarceration to the first
count only, the minute entry specified that the two prison terms would
begin on the same date. Consecutive sentences cannot begin on the same
date. State v. Young, 106 Ariz. 589, 591 (1971). To the extent the identical
start dates create a conflict with the oral pronouncement of sentence, the
oral pronouncement controls. State v. Whitney, 159 Ariz. 476, 487 (1989).
We therefore correct the minute entry by deleting the start date for the
second prison term.

                               CONCLUSION

¶11            Beck’s convictions and sentences are affirmed as corrected.
After the filing of this decision, defense counsel’s obligations pertaining to
Beck’s representation in this appeal will end after informing Beck of the
outcome of this appeal and his future options, unless counsel’s review
reveals an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court
by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584–85 (1984). On
the court’s own motion, Beck has 30 days from the date of this decision to
proceed, if he desires, with a pro se motion for reconsideration or petition
for review.

                          AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
                          FILED: AA
                                         4