Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 13-0566
03-18-2014
STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. TERESA LYNN DAVIS, Appellant.
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By David Simpson Counsel for Appellee Yuma County Public Defender's Office, Phoenix By Edward F. McGee Counsel for Appellant
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE
LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED.
Appeal from the Superior Court in Yuma County
No. S1400CR201101221
The Honorable John Neff Nelson, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix
By David Simpson
Counsel for Appellee
Yuma County Public Defender's Office, Phoenix
By Edward F. McGee
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Randall M. Howe delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge John C. Gemmill joined. HOWE, Judge:
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶ 1 Teresa Lynn Davis appeals the superior court's revocation of her probation and the resulting prison sentence. Davis argues that the court abused its discretion by admitting an unauthenticated document into evidence to prove that she had violated the terms of her probation. Finding no error, we affirm.
¶ 2 On September 22, 2011, Davis was indicted in Yuma County for possession of methamphetamine and possession of drug paraphernalia. Davis pled guilty to attempted possession of methamphetamine and was sentenced to 24 months of supervised probation. Condition 1 of Davis's probation provided: "I will maintain a crime-free lifestyle, by obeying all laws, and not engaging or participating in any criminal activity." Pursuant to the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision (Interstate Compact), Davis served her probationary term in California. On May 10, 2013, Davis's probation officer moved to revoke Davis's probation. Her probation officer alleged that while on probation, Davis had been convicted in California of possessing a controlled substance, possessing drug paraphernalia, and being under the influence of a controlled substance.
¶ 3 At a probation violation hearing, the State sought to admit three exhibits: a California police report describing Davis's arrest and confession to using methamphetamine (Exhibit 1), a felony complaint alleging that Davis committed three California drug offenses (Exhibit 2), and an Interstate Compact Offender Tracking System (ICOTS) Report, which indicated that Davis had pled no contest to those charges (Exhibit 3). Davis objected, arguing that the exhibits were inadmissible because they lacked authentication under Arizona Rules of Evidence 901 and 902 and also violated the "best evidence rule." The superior court overruled Davis's objections but asked the State to "put [Davis's probation officer] on [the stand] to just lay some brief foundation."
ICOTS is a state-managed, "web-based system that facilitates the transfer of supervision for probationers and parolees from one state to another . . . [by] serv[ing] as a clearinghouse for compact offender information." What is ICOTS?, ICOTS, http://www.interstatecompact/ ICOTS/WhatisICOTS.aspx (last visited March 13, 2014).
¶ 4 The probation officer testified that she became aware of Davis's probation violation from ICOTS—a nationwide, internet-based communication system that monitors a defendant's out-of-state activities. The officer explained that probation officers must be certified before accessing ICOTS and that ICOTS is the exclusive method that probation officers are notified when a probation violation occurs. The officer also testified that she obtained Exhibits 1-3 from ICOTS, which prompted her to petition for the revocation of Davis's probation. Davis renewed her objection, but the superior court admitted the exhibits, stating that they were reliable and did not require authentication. The court found that Davis had violated Condition 1 of her probation terms and dismissed the remaining revocation allegations without prejudice.
¶ 5 At sentencing, Davis repeated her authentication objection. The superior court again overruled Davis's objection and sentenced her to a mitigated term of 15 months' imprisonment with 70 days credit.
DISCUSSION
¶ 6 Davis contends that the superior court committed reversible error by admitting Exhibit 3 because it was unauthenticated. Davis asserts that "the document that purportedly proved her California convictions—Exhibit 3—was not authenticated in any way. [Exhibit 3] was nothing more than a computer 'data dump,' bearing no seal, no certification of authenticity, no signature of anyone . . . and no stamp." Whether a party has laid sufficient foundation for the admission of evidence is within the superior court's sound discretion, and we will not disturb the court's ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion. State v. George, 206 Ariz. 436, 446 ¶ 28, 79 P.3d 1050, 1060 (App. 2003).
Although Davis objected to the admission of all three exhibits at trial, on appeal she challenges only the admission of Exhibit 3.
--------
¶ 7 The superior court incorrectly stated that Exhibit 3 did not require authentication to be admissible. Documentary evidence offered at probation revocation hearings must be authenticated. State v. Stotts, 144 Ariz. 72, 82, 695 P.2d 1110, 1120 (1985). Nevertheless, no error occurred because the court asked for—and the State provided—sufficient foundation to admit Exhibit 3 as a public record under Rule 901(b)(7). See State v. Flores, 218 Ariz. 407, 416 ¶ 26 n.14, 188 P.3d 706, 715 n.14 (App. 2008) ("The fact that [the] trial judge comes to the proper conclusion for wrong reason is irrelevant [because] the appellate court is obliged to affirm the trial court's ruling if the result was legally correct for any reason."). State v. Wassenaar, 215 Ariz. 565, 577 ¶ 50, 161 P.3d 608, 620 (App. 2007) (stating that an appellate court "may affirm on any basis supported by the record.").
¶ 8 Arizona Rule of Evidence 901(a) provides that the requirement of authentication as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by "evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is." State v. Irving, 165 Ariz. 219, 223, 797 P.2d 1237, 1241 (App. 1990). In addressing a document's admissibility, the superior court determines whether evidence exists from which the fact finder could reasonably conclude that it is authentic. Id. Whereas Rule 902 provides that certain documents are self-authenticating because they are officially certified, Irving, 165 Ariz. at 223, 797 P.2d at 1241, Rule 901 provides that the authenticity of evidence may be proven by extrinsic evidence. Public records or reports "are presumed authentic when the proponent provides sufficient evidence that the public record or report was in fact filed in a public office as a public record or data compilation and that the public office originating the exhibit generally retained items of this nature." State v. Johnson, 184 Ariz. 521, 527, 911 P.2d 527, 533 (App. 1994) (citing Rule 901(b)(7); State v. Thompson, 166 Ariz. 526, 803 P.2d 937 (App. 1990)).
¶ 9 Here, the State offered an uncertified copy of an ICOTS report (Exhibit 3) as evidence that Davis was convicted in California of various drug charges in violation of Condition 1 of her probation. Although the lack of certification means that Exhibit 3 was not self-authenticating, it does not mean that the report was not authenticated. The State presented evidence that Exhibit 3 was a public record under Rule 901(b)(7). Davis's probation officer testified that it was a report from ICOTS, a clearinghouse of information for probationers or parolees supervised under the Interstate Compact. She testified that she had obtained the report in her capacity as a probation officer with certified access to ICOTS , and that it showed that Davis had been convicted and sentenced in California. This is sufficient evidence from which a fact-finder could reasonably conclude that Exhibit 3 was what the State purported it to be. Thus, the superior court did not abuse its discretion by admitting it into evidence.
CONCLUSION
¶ 10 Finding no error, we affirm.