State v. Brown, 082919 AZAPP1, 1 CA-CR 18-0652
|Docket Nº:||1 CA-CR 18-0652|
|Opinion Judge:||JONES, Judge|
|Party Name:||STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER ROBERT BROWN, Appellant.|
|Attorney:||Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Joseph T. Maziarz Counsel for Appellee. Michael J. Dew Attorney at Law, Phoenix By Michael J. Dew Counsel for Appellant.|
|Judge Panel:||Judge Kenton D. Jones delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown and Judge Maria Elena Cruz joined.|
|Case Date:||August 29, 2019|
|Court:||Court of Appeals of Arizona|
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2018-103044-001 The Honorable Geoffrey H. Fish, Judge
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Joseph T. Maziarz Counsel for Appellee.
Michael J. Dew Attorney at Law, Phoenix By Michael J. Dew Counsel for Appellant.
Judge Kenton D. Jones delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown and Judge Maria Elena Cruz joined.
¶1 Christopher Brown appeals his convictions and sentences for one count each of sex trafficking, receiving the earnings of a prostitute, pandering, and assault. After searching the entire record, Brown's defense counsel identified no arguable question of law that is not frivolous. Therefore, in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), defense counsel asks this Court to search the record for fundamental error. Brown was granted an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona and did so. After reviewing the entire record, we reject the arguments raised in Brown's supplemental brief, and find no error. Accordingly, Brown's convictions and sentences are affirmed.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 On January 17, 2018, during a vice enforcement operation near 38th Street and Van Buren Avenue, a Phoenix Police Department officer saw Brown argue with E.L.P., strike her, and then point to the west, in which direction she subsequently walked.1 With Brown watching her, E.L.P. entered a truck driven by an undercover officer and agreed to engage in a sexual act in exchange for money. In a recorded interview with the officer, E.L.P. stated that Brown was her boyfriend, but he made her engage in prostitution; she did so to support them because Brown refused to work; she gave her earnings to Brown; and she feared he might hurt her if she refused.
¶3 The State charged Brown with sex trafficking, receiving the earnings of a prostitute, pandering, and assault. Brown rejected the State's plea offer, waived his right to a jury, and was tried at a bench trial.
¶4 At a defense interview the day prior to her testimony, E.L.P. repeated the statements made to the undercover officer. Her testimony differed markedly at trial, however, where she claimed Brown had nothing to do with her prostitution, and that her choices in the matter were all her own. The State impeached E.L.P. with the recording of her initial interview. The undercover officer who conducted this interview also testified that, in his experience with sex trafficking cases, victims frequently change their story after seeing their...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP