Opinion
2 CA-CR 2023-0095
11-28-2023
The State of Arizona, Appellee, v. Zion Zachary Kauffman, Appellant.
Kristin K. Mayes, Arizona Attorney General Alice M. Jones, Deputy Solicitor General/Section Chief of Criminal Appeals By Diane Leigh Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Tucson Counsel for Appellee Zion Zachary Kauffman In Propria Persona
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County No. CR202100087 The Honorable Billy K. Sipe Jr., Judge Pro Tempore
Kristin K. Mayes, Arizona Attorney General Alice M. Jones, Deputy Solicitor General/Section Chief of Criminal Appeals By Diane Leigh Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Tucson Counsel for Appellee
Zion Zachary Kauffman In Propria Persona
Judge Kelly authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Brearcliffe and Judge Eckerstrom concurred.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
KELLY, JUDGE
¶1 Zion Kauffman appeals from his convictions and sentences for sexual exploitation of a minor. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Factual and Procedural Background
¶2 "We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury's verdicts." State v. MacHardy, 254 Ariz. 231, ¶ 2 (App. 2022). In November 2020, detectives from the Mohave County Sheriff's Office executed a search warrant of Kauffman's property in Golden Valley, Arizona. Pursuant to this warrant, a detective located an iPad and iPhone belonging to Kauffman.
The search warrant pertained to a matter unrelated to this appeal.
¶3 During a subsequent forensic search of Kauffman's iPhone, detectives discovered ten screenshots from an October 2020 FaceTime call between Kauffman and his four-year-old stepdaughter. During the call, Kauffman took screenshots of her undressed and posed in various positions with her genitalia and/or rectal area exposed. These images were also found on Kauffman's iPad, and nine of them were stored to his iCloud account.
¶4 Kauffman was later charged with ten counts of sexual exploitation of a minor. After a jury trial, Kauffman was convicted of seven of the counts, and the trial court sentenced him to seventy years in prison.
¶5 Kauffman appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article VI, § 9 of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and 13-4033(A)(1).
Discussion
¶6 On appeal, Kauffman's opening brief consists of nine sentences and contains several factual assertions. He broadly maintains his innocence and claims the pictures of his stepdaughter were taken "only for medical reasons." Kauffman asserts generally that the state committed multiple violations of his due process rights.
¶7 An opening brief must contain an argument that provides the standard of review and states "appellant's contentions with supporting reasons for each contention, and with citations of legal authorities and appropriate references to the portions of the record on which the appellant relies." Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.10(a)(7). An appellant who "summarily lists" his claims without argument waives those claims on appeal. State v. Carver, 160 Ariz. 167, 175 (1989); see also State v. Bolton, 182 Ariz. 290, 298 (1995) ("Failure to argue a claim on appeal constitutes waiver of that claim."). Pro se litigants are subject to the same rules as an attorney. See State v. Cornell, 179 Ariz. 314, 331 (1994).
¶8 Kauffman's opening brief fails to comply with our procedural rules. Specifically, his brief does not provide the standard of review or any support for his assertions, and it contains no citation to legal authority or reference to the record. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.10(a)(7). Instead, the brief offers only a summary list of his claims without meaningful argument. Those claims are therefore waived on appeal. See Carver, 160 Ariz. at 175.
¶9 Notwithstanding Kauffman's waiver of these claims, the state presented substantial evidence at trial to support his convictions. See State v. Watson, 248 Ariz. 208, ¶ 11 (App. 2020). At trial, Kauffman testified as a witness on his own behalf and admitted to possession of the charged images, but contested they were taken only for medical purposes. The jury heard this testimony and found him guilty of seven of the charged counts. It is the proper role of the jury to weigh evidence and assess witness credibility, and this court will not invade those duties. See State v. Williams, 209 Ariz. 228, ¶ 6 (App. 2004).
Disposition
¶10 We affirm Kauffman's convictions and sentences.