AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• In January 2015, the defendant, a 22-year-old, met the victim, L.G., a 12-year-old, in her neighborhood. The defendant misrepresented his age as eighteen to L.G., who disclosed her age to him. They exchanged phone numbers and began communicating via text and Snapchat, where the defendant solicited "cutie" and "sexy" pictures from L.G. and offered to send her a picture of his penis. L.G. received a picture of a penis on Snapchat but the sender's face was not shown. L.G. visited the defendant's house, where he offered her marijuana, which she declined, and kissed her aggressively against her will. L.G. disclosed the incident to a friend, leading to her mother finding out and a subsequent police investigation. The defendant denied knowing L.G. and suggested his cousin, Adam Garcia, might be responsible for the crimes against L.G. However, inconsistencies in Garcia's statements led the police to believe he was being deceptive (paras 3-9).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Contended that the district court committed fundamental error by omitting the required element of the defendant’s knowledge of the victim's age from the jury instruction for child solicitation, erred by sentencing the defendant to sex-offender parole, and erred by enhancing the defendant's sentence based on a prior felony conviction for conduct committed as a minor (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Argued that the defendant's sentence was properly enhanced under the habitual offender statute and that the defendant is subject to sex offender parole (paras 28, 24).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court committed fundamental error by omitting the required element of the defendant’s knowledge of the victim's age from the jury instruction for child solicitation.
• Whether the district court erred by sentencing the defendant to sex-offender parole.
• Whether the district court erred by enhancing the defendant's sentence pursuant to the habitual offender statute based on a prior felony conviction for conduct the defendant committed as a minor.

Disposition

• The court reversed the defendant's sentencing to sex-offender parole but otherwise affirmed the district court's decisions (para 1).

Reasons

• The court found that the omission of the defendant's knowledge of the victim's age from the jury instruction for child solicitation did not constitute fundamental error because this element was not at issue in the case. The court held that the district court erred by sentencing the defendant to sex offender parole, aligning with the reasoning in State v. Sena, which concluded that a conviction for child solicitation is not subject to sex offender parole. The court also held that the defendant's sentence was properly enhanced under the habitual offender statute, despite the defendant being a minor at the time of the prior felony conviction in Arizona, as the statute mandates sentence enhancement for prior felony convictions without exemptions for differences in procedural protections for juveniles between jurisdictions (paras 13-34).