Not for Publication – Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2011-149163-001 The Honorable Edward W. Bassett, Judge
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Joseph T. Maziarz Counsel for Appellee
Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, Phoenix By Terry J. Adams Counsel for Appellant
Judge Donn Kessler delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Maurice Portley and Judge Samuel A. Thumma joined.
¶1 Appellant Cherish Arroyo ("Arroyo") was convicted of five counts of sexual conduct with a minor and sentenced to lifetime probation on all five counts, with nine months' jail time as a condition of probation for count 2. Counsel for Arroyo filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999). Finding no arguable issues to raise, counsel requests that this Court search the record for fundamental error. Arroyo was given the opportunity to file a pro per supplemental brief, but did not do so. For the following reasons, we affirm Arroyo's convictions and sentences.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 The victim, S.J., was born on June 21, 1994. He was a high school student whom Arroyo met by hosting booster club meetings at her home.
¶3 In May 2011, when S.J. was sixteen years old, Arroyo and S.J. became friends on the social media website Facebook, through which the two began exchanging instant messages. In August 2011, after S.J. inadvertently left his Facebook account open on his family computer, S.J's mother ("Mother") read through S.J.'s Facebook messages and noticed the conversations between him and Arroyo. Mother contacted the police and notified S.J.'s father ("Father"), who confronted S.J. about the suspicious Facebook messages. S.J. told Father that he and Arroyo had sex.
¶4 In September 2011, the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office ("MCSO") arranged a confrontation call between S.J. and Arroyo. During that call, S.J. told Arroyo that his parents saw their Facebook messages and now think that they are having sex. Arroyo responded that she could go to jail because S.J. is a minor.
¶5 Thereafter, MCSO detectives confronted Arroyo at her home and brought her in for an interview. MCSO Detective T.M. read Arroyo her Miranda rights at the start of the interview. Arroyo admitted to having oral and penile-vaginal sex with S.J. multiple times.
¶6 Arroyo was indicted on six counts of sexual conduct with a minor, all class 6 felonies. The indictment alleged three separate instances of oral sexual contact and three separate instances of penile-vaginal intercourse.
¶7 At trial, S.J. testified about sex acts occurring on three separate dates. According to S.J., the first encounter took place in May 2011, when Arroyo invited him over via Facebook. He explained that the second encounter occurred in late May or early June 2011 and followed the same pattern of watching television in bed, followed by oral and then ...