Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2019-0030
01-09-2020
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. MICHAEL HUNTOON, Appellant.
COUNSEL Harriette P. Levitt, Tucson Counsel for Appellant
THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.19(e). Appeal from the Superior Court in Pinal County
No. S1100CR201503282
The Honorable Lawrence M. Wharton, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL Harriette P. Levitt, Tucson
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Staring authored the decision of the Court, in which Chief Judge Vásquez and Judge Brearcliffe concurred. STARING, Presiding Judge:
¶1 After a jury trial, Michael Huntoon was convicted of ten counts of sexual exploitation of a minor under the age of fifteen. The trial court sentenced him to consecutive prison terms totaling 280 years.
¶2 Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530 (App. 1999), stating she has reviewed the record but found "no arguable issues on appeal" and asking this court to review the record for error. Huntoon has filed a supplemental brief raising several issues related to the search warrant leading to the discovery of incriminating images, as well as arguing his statements to police were involuntary and his speedy trial rights were violated.
We subsequently granted counsel's motion to withdraw. --------
¶3 Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury's verdicts, see State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2 (App. 1999), the evidence is sufficient here, see A.R.S. §§ 13-705(Q)(1)(g), 13-3553(A)(2), (C). In October 2015, law enforcement officers found on Huntoon's laptop computer ten images of child pornography depicting victims under the age of fifteen. The evidence supports the trial court's finding that he previously had been convicted of a dangerous crime against children. See §§ 13-705(O), (Q)(1)(d), (2), 13-1410(A). And the sentences imposed are within the statutory range. See §§ 13-705(D), 13-3553(C). We have reviewed the issues Huntoon identifies in his supplemental brief and have determined they are not arguable issues requiring further briefing. See State v. Thompson, 229 Ariz. 43, ¶ 3 (App. 2012).
¶4 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for reversible error, including the purported errors Huntoon identified in his supplemental brief, and found none. Accordingly, we affirm Huntoon's convictions and sentences.