from the Superior Court in Pima County No. CR20123419001 The
Honorable Howard Fell, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED
Brnovich, Arizona Attorney General Joseph T. Maziarz, Section
Chief Counsel, Phoenix By Mariette Ambri, Assistant Attorney
General, Tucson Counsel for Appellee
R. Sonenberg, Pima County Public Defender By Michael J.
Miller, Assistant Public Defender, Tucson Counsel for
Presiding Judge Howard authored the opinion of the Court, in
which Judge Espinosa and Judge Staring concurred.
HOWARD, Presiding Judge:
Following a jury trial, Craig Coleman was convicted of
unlawful imprisonment of a minor under fifteen, aggravated
assault of a minor under fifteen, assault, and burglary. On
appeal, he argues the trial court violated his equal
protection and substantive due process rights by requiring
him to register pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-3821 (A)(1)
absent a jury finding the unlawful imprisonment was sexually
motivated. Because we find no constitutional violation, we
and Procedural Background
We view the facts in the light most favorable to upholding
the jury verdicts. State v. Haverstick, 234 Ariz.
161, ¶ 2, 318 P.3d 877, 880 (App. 2014). In September
2012, C.B. was holding her three-year-old daughter, H.T.,
when Coleman entered her backyard, "grabbed the
baby's arm" and tried to pull her away from C.B.
Coleman punched C.B. in the face, causing her to fall down
and on top of H.T. He punched C.B. again and then ran away.
Coleman was charged with kidnapping and aggravated assault as
to H.T., aggravated assault causing temporary and substantial
disfigurement as to C.B., and burglary. A jury found him
guilty of unlawful imprisonment of a minor under fifteen as a
lesser-included offense of kidnapping, but found the state
did not prove it was committed with sexual motivation beyond
a reasonable doubt. The jury also found him guilty of
aggravated assault of a minor under fifteen, of assault of
C.B. as a lesser-included offense of the aggravated assault,
and of burglary.
The trial court sentenced Coleman to concurrent prison terms,
the longest of which is 2.5 years. It also ordered him to
register pursuant to § 13-3821 (A)(1) for a period of
ten years. § 13-3821(A)(1), (M). We have jurisdiction
pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1) and
Coleman argues the trial court's order that he register
pursuant to § 13-3821 violates his substantive due
process and equal protection rights under the United States
and Arizona constitutions. He reasons that subjecting him to
§ 13-3821's registration requirements and labeling
him a "sex offender" when sexual conduct is not an
element of unlawful imprisonment and the jury failed to find
the crime was sexually motivated is not rationally related to
the legislature's purpose in establishing the registry.
Coleman raised his equal protection argument below, thus
preserving it for review, but forfeited any review of whether
his substantive due process rights have been violated except
for fundamental, prejudicial error.See State v.
Henderson,210 Ariz. 561, ¶ 19, 115 P.3d 601, 607
(2005); see also State v. Lopez,217 Ariz. 433,
¶ 4, 175 P.3d 682, 683 (App. 2008) ("objection on
one ground does not preserve the issue on another
ground"). However, under either standard of review,
Coleman must first establish error occurred. See State v.
Katzorke,167 Ariz. 599, 600, 810 P.2d 597, 598 (App.
1990) (violation of equal protection reversible error);
see also State v. Avila,217 Ariz. 97, ¶ 9, 170
P.3d 706, 708 (App. 2007) (under ...