IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, V. OSCAR PENA TRUJILLO, Appellant. No. CR-18-0531-PR Filed May 4, 2020 Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County The Honorable Howard L. Fell, Judge Pro Tempore No. CR20152255-001 AFFIRMED Opinion of the Court of Appeals, Division Two 245 Ariz. 414 (App. 2018) VACATED COUNSEL: Mark Brnovich, Arizona Attorney General, O.H. Skinner, Solicitor General, Joseph T. Maziarz, Chief Counsel, Criminal Appeals Section, Amy Pignatella Cain (argued), Assistant Attorney General, Tucson, Attorneys for State of Arizona Joel Feinman, Pima County Public Defender, David J. Euchner (argued), Michael J. Miller, Deputy Public Defenders, Tucson, Attorneys for Oscar Pena Trujillo Daniel C. Barr, Randal B. McDonald, Lindsey M. Huang, Perkins Coie, LLP, Phoenix, and Martin Lieberman, Jared G. Keenan, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Arizona, Phoenix, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona STATE OF ARIZONA V. OSCAR PENA TRUJILLO Opinion of the Court JUSTICE GOULD authored the opinion of the Court, in which CHIEF JUSTICE BRUTINEL, VICE CHIEF JUSTICE TIMMER, and JUSTICES LOPEZ, BEENE, and MONTGOMERY joined. JUSTICE BOLICK dissented. JUSTICE GOULD, opinion of the Court: ¶1 We hold that a judge has the authority, for the purposes of imposing mandatory sex offender registration under A.R.S. § 13-3821(A)(3), to make the necessary factual finding that the victim is under eighteen. In reaching this holding, we conclude that Arizona’s sex offender registration statutes are civil regulatory statutes, not criminal penalties. As a result, Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) does not apply. ¶2 These laws, which include registration as a sex offender, community notification, and public access to an offender internet registry, serve the important civil regulatory purpose of making offender information “accessible” to the public so that they “can take the precautions they deem necessary” for their own safety. Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84, 101, 102–03 (2003). In contrast, the rule of Apprendi, which is premised on the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial in a criminal case, only applies to criminal penalties. I. ¶3 In April 2015, M.A.C., a fifteen-year-old from Honduras, crossed the border into the United States at McAllen, Texas. Immigration officials eventually transferred him to a shelter for immigrant children in Tucson. ¶4 Trujillo was employed as a youth care worker at the Tucson shelter. One morning, while M.A.C. was staying at the shelter, Trujillo entered his room and touched M.A.C.’s penis over his clothing. Trujillo was subsequently convicted of one count of sexual abuse, a class five felony, in violation of A.R.S. § 13-1404(A). ¶5 In reaching its verdict, the jury determined, as an element of the offense, that M.A.C. was “fifteen or more years of age.” See § 13-1404(A) (defining sexual abuse as “intentionally or knowingly engaging in sexual contact with any person who is fifteen or more years of age without consent”). It made no other findings about M.A.C.’s age. 2 STATE OF ARIZONA V. OSCAR PENA TRUJILLO Opinion of the Court ¶6 At ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals