Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 14-0613
02-02-2016
STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. CLAUDE RANGER, III, Appellant.
COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Joseph T. Maziarz Counsel for Appellee Law Office of Nicole Farnum, Phoenix By Nicole Farnum Counsel for Appellant
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2012-005729-001
The Honorable Cynthia Bailey, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix
By Joseph T. Maziarz
Counsel for Appellee Law Office of Nicole Farnum, Phoenix
By Nicole Farnum
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Donn Kessler delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop and Judge Samuel A. Thumma joined. KESSLER, Judge:
¶1 Appellant Claude Ranger, III ("Ranger") was tried and convicted of six counts of sexual assault, a class 2 felony, and sentenced to thirty years' imprisonment. Counsel for Ranger filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969). Finding no arguable issues to raise, counsel requests that this Court search the record for fundamental error. Ranger was given an opportunity to file a supplemental pro per brief but did not do so. For the reasons that follow, we affirm Ranger's conviction and sentence.
Count 1: Sexual Assault, penile/vaginal, first time. Count 2: Sexual Assault, penile/oral, first time. Count 3: Sexual Assault, penile/vaginal, second time. Count 4: Sexual Assault, masturbatory. Count 5: Sexual Assault, penile/vaginal, "doggy style." Count 6: Sexual Assault, penile/oral, second time.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On appeal, we construe the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve all reasonable inferences against the defendant. State v. Garcia-Quintana, 234 Ariz. 267, 269 n.1, ¶ 1 (App. 2014).
¶2 In September 1991, Ranger and an unidentified man forced themselves into SK's vehicle and told her to drive to an abandoned house. When Ranger, SK, and the unidentified man arrived at the house, Ranger and the man forced SK inside and subjected her to several acts of sexual assault including oral and vaginal sex. While each man sexually assaulted SK, the other man stood by and observed the ongoing act.
¶3 After Ranger and the unidentified man left the house the next morning, SK drove to the hospital. A nurse examined SK and completed a sexual assault evidence kit.
¶4 Despite attempts to identify the perpetrators, the case remained unsolved and was eventually assigned to a "cold case" detective. The sexual assault evidence kit was not subjected to DNA analysis, and no identifiable fingerprints were found on or inside SK's car other than one print belonging to a female acquaintance of SK who was not involved in the investigation. The house where the alleged sexual assaults occurred was never located despite numerous search attempts by police detectives.
In the 1990s, not all investigations of sexual crimes with biological evidence were submitted to a crime lab, and DNA analysis was not widely available.
¶5 Two decades later, the Phoenix Police Department crime lab tested the sexual assault evidence kit and matched Ranger's DNA profile with a sperm fraction found on the shorts SK wore the day of the sexual assaults. Although Ranger's DNA was not found in any other place, information regarding the suspects' ethnicity, height, and estimated age provided in previous descriptions by SK were consistent with Ranger's physical appearance.
¶6 When interviewed by police in 2011, Ranger denied any involvement and claimed he never met SK. Ranger later moved to suppress statements he made to law enforcement during the interview, arguing he was unable to knowingly and voluntarily waive his Miranda rights due to severe mental and physical impairment from a car accident in 2006. After reviewing a video of the interview, the trial court found that law enforcement officers had properly provided Ranger with his Miranda warnings and that Ranger sufficiently understood the warnings before answering questions. The court concluded based on the totality of the circumstances that Ranger's statements were voluntarily made and denied Ranger's motion to suppress.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
¶7 At trial, the State argued the aggravating factors of accomplice liability and physical or emotional harm to a victim. The jury found Ranger guilty on all six counts of sexual assault and found both aggravators proven for all six counts. The trial court sentenced Ranger to thirty years' imprisonment, a term of community supervision, DNA testing, and a $5 probation surcharge.
¶8 Ranger timely appealed and we have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, as well as Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") sections 12-120.21(A)(1) (2003), 13-4031 (2010), and 13-4033(A)(1) (2010).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶9 In an Anders appeal, this Court must review the entire record for fundamental error. See State v. Banicki, 188 Ariz. 114, 117 (App. 1997). Fundamental error is "error going to the foundation of the case, error that takes from the defendant a right essential to his defense, and error of such magnitude that the defendant could not possibly have received a fair trial." State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 567, ¶ 19 (2005) (quoting State v. Hunter, 142 Ariz. 88, 90 (1984)). To obtain a reversal, the defendant must also demonstrate that the error caused prejudice. Id. at ¶ 20.
DISCUSSION
¶10 After careful review of the record, we find no grounds for reversal of Ranger's conviction or modification of the sentence imposed. The record reflects Ranger had a fair trial and all proceedings were conducted in accordance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. We have also reviewed the recording of the police interrogation of Ranger and conclude that the recording supports the court's conclusion that the statements were voluntarily made and Ranger understood his rights. The evidence supports the verdict and the sentence imposed was within the sentencing limits. Ranger was present and represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings below. Accordingly, we affirm Ranger's conviction and sentence.
¶11 There is sufficient evidence in the record to support Ranger's conviction. In reviewing the sufficiency of evidence at trial, we construe the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve all reasonable inferences against the defendant. State v. Garcia-Quintana, 234 Ariz. 267, 269 n.1, ¶ 1 (App. 2014). "Reversible error based on insufficiency of the evidence occurs only where there is a complete absence of probative facts to support the conviction." State v. Soto-Fong, 187 Ariz. 186, 200 (1996) (quoting State v. Scott, 113 Ariz. 423, 424-25 (1976)).
¶12 The crime of sexual assault requires proof that the defendant "intentionally or knowingly engag[ed] in sexual intercourse or oral sexual contact with any person without consent of such person." A.R.S. § 13-1406 (1989). A defendant is subject to accomplice liability for the criminal conduct of another if he, with the intent to promote or facilitate the commission of the offense, does any of the following: (1) solicits or commands another person to commit the offense; (2) aids, counsels, agrees to aid, or attempts to aid another person in planning or committing the offense; or (3) provides means or opportunity to another person to commit the offense. A.R.S. §§ 13-301 (1989), -303(A)(3) (1989).
¶13 Here, SK gave details about each of the six sexual assaults and was able to distinguish between the acts of the two men. She said the men took turns, watching each other assault her. Both the examining nurse and initial responding officer to the hospital testified regarding SK's physical injuries, including bruises on her arms and knees and red marks around her neck consistent with being held down.
¶14 Although SK was unable to identify Ranger in court as one of the perpetrators, Ranger's DNA profile matched the sperm fraction on SK's shorts. The cold case detective testified that the DNA evidence was consistent with what SK told the police several years earlier. The forensic scientist who analyzed the DNA testified that substances normally wash out faster in the mouth than in other places of the human body. Accordingly, the fact that Ranger's sperm was not found on SK's oral swabs does not necessarily indicate that Ranger did not ejaculate into SK's mouth as alleged.
¶15 Finally, the cold case detective testified that information regarding the suspects' ethnicity, height, and estimated age as previously described by SK was consistent with Ranger's physical appearance. The detective also linked Ranger to a residential address, his girlfriend's apartment where he was living at the time, located adjacent to the alley which SK was leaving when the two men forced themselves into the car.
¶16 Based on the foregoing, there was sufficient evidence for a jury to reasonably find that Ranger was the man who forced SK to engage in sex with him, and that he stood by and observed and facilitated the other unidentified suspect's vaginal/penile assaults on SK.
CONCLUSION
¶17 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Ranger's convictions and sentences. Upon the filing of this decision, counsel shall inform Ranger of the status of the appeal and his options. Defense counsel has no further obligations, unless, upon review, counsel finds an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85 (1984). Ranger shall have thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he so desires, with a pro per motion for reconsideration or petition for review.