From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Taylor

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO
Jun 12, 2018
No. 2 CA-CR 2018-0091-PR (Ariz. Ct. App. Jun. 12, 2018)

Opinion

No. 2 CA-CR 2018-0091-PR

06-12-2018

THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. CHARLES SCOTT TAYLOR, Petitioner.

COUNSEL Kent P. Volkmer, Pinal County Attorney By Thomas C. McDermott, Appellate Bureau Chief-Criminal Appeals, Florence Counsel for Respondent Charles S. Taylor, Florence In Propria Persona


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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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). Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Pinal County
No. S1100CR200701800
The Honorable Stephen F. McCarville, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL Kent P. Volkmer, Pinal County Attorney
By Thomas C. McDermott, Appellate Bureau Chief-Criminal
Appeals, Florence
Counsel for Respondent Charles S. Taylor, Florence
In Propria Persona

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Staring authored the decision of the Court, in which Chief Judge Eckerstrom and Judge Brearcliffe concurred. STARING, Presiding Judge:

¶1 Charles Taylor seeks review of the trial court's denial of his successive and untimely notice of post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. We will not disturb the court's ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion. State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390, ¶ 4 (App. 2007). Taylor has not shown such abuse in this instance.

Factual and Procedural Background

¶2 In 2008, Taylor was convicted on charges arising from sexual offenses he committed against his stepdaughter and his attempts to prevent the victim and his wife from testifying. The trial court sentenced him to a combination of concurrent and consecutive prison terms totaling fifty-two years, and we affirmed the convictions and sentences on appeal. State v. Taylor, Nos. 2 CA-CR 2008-0194, 2 CA-CR 2008-0195, ¶¶ 3, 13 (Ariz. App. Oct. 14, 2009) (consol. mem. decision). In total, Taylor has initiated four unsuccessful proceedings for post-conviction relief, and unsuccessfully sought review on two of his first three petitions. State v. Taylor, Nos. 2 CA-CR 2017-0145-PR, 2 CA-CR 2017-0146-PR (Ariz. App. Oct. 5, 2017) (consol. mem. decision) (reciting history, denying relief on review of third petition); State v. Taylor, Nos. 2 CA-CR 2011-0213-PR, 2 CA-CR 2011-0287-PR (Ariz. App. Jan. 10, 2012) (consol. mem. decision) (denying relief on review of first petition).

¶3 In his latest Rule 32 proceeding, Taylor asserted in his notice of post-conviction relief that the United States District Court's decision in May v. Ryan, 245 F. Supp. 3d 1145 (D. Ariz. 2017), amounted to a significant change in the law for the purposes of Rule 32.1(g), because the court "ruled an Arizona statute on molestation of a child to be unconstitutional since 1997." Sections 13-1410 and 13-1407(E), A.R.S., the statutes at issue here, provide that sexual motivation is not an element that the state must prove for child molestation and that defendants may raise lack of sexual motivation as an affirmative defense. Dismissing Taylor's latest notice, the trial court explained that the change asserted "allegedly occurred in 1997" and thus did not create a change in the law "and should have been addressed in previous petitions."

The trial court incorrectly referred to Taylor's notice as a petition for post-conviction relief.

Discussion

¶4 On review, Taylor argues that Arizona courts must follow the federal district court's ruling in May that the procedure required by §§ 13-1407(E) and 13-1410 is unconstitutional. In May, the court decided that "the burden-shifting scheme of sections 13-1410 and 13-1407(E) of the Arizona Revised Statutes as applied in this case violates the Constitution's guarantee of due process of law." 245 F. Supp. 3d at 1171. The Arizona Supreme Court, however, upheld the statutory scheme provided by §§ 13-1407(E) and 13-1410. See State v. Holle, 240 Ariz. 300, ¶¶ 40, 46 (2016), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 137 S. Ct. 1446 (2017).

¶5 Although the trial court characterized Taylor's claim as based on a change in the law in 1997, in his notice of post-conviction relief Taylor identified the decision in May as the significant change in the law. We may affirm a trial court if it reached the right result, albeit for an incorrect reason. See State v. Perez, 141 Ariz. 459, 464 (1984). Arizona courts are bound by the rulings of the Arizona Supreme Court. State v. Cooney, 233 Ariz. 335, ¶ 18 (App. 2013). In contrast, federal district courts do not bind Arizona state courts. State v. Gates, 118 Ariz. 357, 359 (1978); Arpaio v. Figueroa, 229 Ariz. 444, ¶ 11 (App. 2012). Because Taylor relies on a federal case that, unlike Holle, does not bind Arizona courts, there was no "significant change in the law" for purposes of Rule 32.1(g). Thus, although it did so for an incorrect reason, the court was correct in summarily dismissing Taylor's fourth notice of post-conviction relief.

We note, moreover, that Taylor was required to state in his notice why he could not have raised the claim in a prior or timely proceeding. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b) (untimely notice subject to summary dismissal absent identification of "specific exception" under Rule 32.1(d)-(h) or omission of reason for failure to raise claim in previous petition or timely manner). We assume, however, that Taylor could not have raised the claim in a prior proceeding because May was decided on March 28, 2017, and Taylor's immediately preceding notice of post-conviction relief was filed on February 24, 2017. The trial court denied relief on March 27, 2017. --------

Disposition

¶6 Accordingly, we grant review but deny relief.


Summaries of

State v. Taylor

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO
Jun 12, 2018
No. 2 CA-CR 2018-0091-PR (Ariz. Ct. App. Jun. 12, 2018)
Case details for

State v. Taylor

Case Details

Full title:THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. CHARLES SCOTT TAYLOR, Petitioner.

Court:ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO

Date published: Jun 12, 2018

Citations

No. 2 CA-CR 2018-0091-PR (Ariz. Ct. App. Jun. 12, 2018)