State v. Moore, 1 CA-CR 21-0250

In May 2020 Moore was charged with multiple felonies arising from an incident in Yavapai County, including attempted first‑degree murder, aggravated assaults, disorderly conduct, discharge of a firearm at a structure, and criminal damage alleged to be $1,000–$2,000 (class 6 felony).
After the State rested, the superior court granted a judgment of acquittal on the firearm discharge count and concluded evidence was insufficient to prove felony criminal damage but sufficient to support a misdemeanor criminal damage charge.
The court allowed the criminal damage charge to proceed as a class 1 misdemeanor; the jury convicted Moore of the remaining counts and the court found him guilty of the misdemeanor criminal damage.
At sentencing the court announced sentences without first giving Moore the opportunity to address the court, then immediately recognized the oversight and asked if he wished to speak; Moore briefly addressed the court.
Moore received concurrent and consecutive prison terms on the felonies (longest 20 years) and 180 days (with credit for time served) on the misdemeanor. He appealed, arguing (1) the court lacked authority to designate the felony charge a misdemeanor and (2) he was denied the right to address the court prior to sentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court could treat the criminal damage charge as a misdemeanor after acquitting felony allegation	State: evidence supported lesser included misdemeanor; court may proceed on misdemeanor when felony proof fails	Moore: court lacked authority; should dismiss felony charge with prejudice; Frey and §13‑604 govern	Court: Affirmed misdemeanor conviction; §13‑604 and Frey inapplicable; no jury right for misdemeanor; evidence supported class 1 misdemeanor
Whether failure to allow Moore to address court before pronouncing sentence requires resentencing	State: court promptly corrected oversight and allowed Moore to speak; no fundamental error or prejudice	Moore: was denied his right to address the court and prejudiced by sentencing without speaking first	Court: No resentencing required; relief not warranted absent showing he would have added mitigation beyond what was presented; Moore showed no prejudice

State v. Frey, 141 Ariz. 321 (1984) (addressing a judge’s pretrial promise to designate a charged class 6 felony as a misdemeanor and related jury‑trial concerns)
Derendal v. Griffith, 209 Ariz. 416 (2005) (no right to jury trial for a misdemeanor offense)
State v. Escalante, 245 Ariz. 135 (2018) (appellate standard and fundamental‑error review in criminal cases)
State v. Hinchey, 181 Ariz. 307 (1995) (failure to let defendant speak at sentencing does not require resentencing absent additional mitigating evidence defendant would have offered)
State v. Karr, 221 Ariz. 319 (App. 2008) (appellate standard: view evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining convictions)