Court Opinion

ID: 9948577
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-07 17:03:49.091865+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:30:40.909843
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

                 EDWARD FIONNE COLLINS, Appellant.

                             No. 1 CA-CR 23-0042
                               FILED 3-7-2024

           Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                        No. CR2020-107297-001
                The Honorable Jeffrey A. Rueter, Judge

                                  AFFIRMED

                                   COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Kevin M. Morrow
Counsel for Appellee

The Susser Law Firm, PLLC, Chandler
By Adam M. Susser
Counsel for Appellant
                            STATE v. COLLINS
                            Decision of the Court

                       MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Andrew M. Jacobs and Judge Jennifer M. Perkins joined.

W E I N Z W E I G, Judge:

¶1           Edward Collins appeals his convictions and sentences for one
count of molestation and one count of sexual conduct with a minor. He
argues the convictions and sentences violate principles of double jeopardy.
We disagree and thus affirm.

             FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2            Collins lived with his girlfriend and her eleven-year-old
daughter, along with other minors. Because his girlfriend worked an
overnight shift, Collins regularly watched her daughter at night. On one
such night in May 2017, Collins inappropriately touched the daughter and
forced her to perform sexual acts on him.

¶3             After returning to school the next day, the victim told a friend,
patrol officer, detective, and school officials what happened. According to
the victim, Collins touched her private area (first act) and then forced her
to touch his penis (second act) while on the couch. Collins was charged
with sexual conduct with a minor for touching the child inappropriately
(Count 1), and molestation for forcing the child to touch him (Count 2). The
child returned to her bedroom, but Collins summoned her back to the
couch, where he forced her to masturbate him until he ejaculated (third act).
Collins was also charged with sexual conduct with a minor for this act
(Count 5). Police matched Collins’ DNA to DNA on a blanket at the crime
scene. Collins fled the state, but was later apprehended.

¶4            A five-day jury trial was held in October 2022. Collins was
convicted of one count of molestation (Count 2) and two counts of sexual
conduct with a minor under the age of twelve (Counts 1 and 5). He was
sentenced to life with the possibility of parole after 35 years for Count 1; 17
years for Count 2; and 20 years for Count 5, to run consecutively.

¶5           Collins timely appealed his convictions and sentences for
molestation (Count 2) and one count of sexual conduct with a minor under
the age of twelve (Count 5). Collins does not contest his conviction and

                                       2
                            STATE v. COLLINS
                            Decision of the Court

sentence for one count of sexual conduct with a minor (Count 1). We have
jurisdiction. See Ariz. Const. art. VI, § 9; A.R.S. § 12-120.21(A)(1), A.R.S. §§
13-4031, -4033(A).

                               DISCUSSION

¶6             Collins argues that double jeopardy precludes his convictions
and sentences. Because Collins failed to raise the issue of double jeopardy
at trial, we review for fundamental error. State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561,
567, ¶ 19 (2005). A double jeopardy violation is fundamental error. State v.
McGill, 213 Ariz. 147, 153, ¶ 21 (2006).

¶7            Collins contends his convictions and sentences for
molestation (Count 2) and sexual conduct with a minor (Count 5) violate
the right to be free from double jeopardy. He contends that molestation is
a lesser-included offense of sexual conduct with a minor and that the same
act was used to prove his guilt on both charges.

¶8             The double jeopardy clauses of the United States and Arizona
Constitutions protect criminal defendants from multiple convictions and
punishments for the “same offense.” U.S. Const. amend. V; Ariz. Const. art.
II, § 10. A defendant may not be convicted for both an offense and its lesser-
included offense because they are considered the “same offense” for double
jeopardy purposes. State v. Ortega, 220 Ariz. 320, 324, ¶ 9 (App. 2008); see
also Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932).

¶9             Molestation is a lesser-included offense of sexual conduct
with a minor. Ortega, 220 Ariz. at 328, ¶¶ 24–25. But a conviction for both
is proper if there is evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude, beyond a
reasonable doubt, that the defendant committed two separate acts. Id. at
329, ¶¶ 27–28; see also State v. Boldrey, 176 Ariz. 378, 381 (App. 1993)
(multiple sexual acts that occur during the same incident may be treated as
separate crimes).

¶10           That is what happened here. According to trial testimony,
Collins touched the child inappropriately (first act) and then forced her to
touch his penis (second act) while on the couch. The child returned to her
bedroom, but Collins later summoned her back to the couch and forced her
to masturbate him until he ejaculated (third act). Collins was convicted of
sexual conduct with a minor for the first act (Count 1), molestation for the
second act (Count 2), and sexual conduct with a minor for the third act,
which occurred after the child returned to bed (Count 5). The verdict forms
identified these separate events, as the prosecutor did during closing
statements. The record had sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to

                                       3
                            STATE v. COLLINS
                            Decision of the Court

conclude that Collins committed three separate acts giving rise to three
separate convictions. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to
sustain the jury’s verdicts, State v. Miles, 211 Ariz. 475, 476, ¶ 2 (App. 2005),
we find no violation of double jeopardy.

                               CONCLUSION

¶11           Collins’ convictions and sentences are affirmed.

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

                                         4