State v. Thompson, 1 CA-CR 16-0622-PRPC

In 2013 Thompson entered an Alford plea to one count of attempted sexual exploitation of a minor based on possession of an electronic image showing a female under 15 engaged in masturbatory conduct; court accepted plea and sentenced him to five years probation.
Probation prohibited internet access without written permission; about two months later probation officer alleged Thompson accessed Facebook and solicited friends including a 13‑year‑old, and moved to revoke probation.
After a contested hearing the superior court found Thompson violated probation, revoked it, and imposed five years’ imprisonment.
Thompson filed a petition for post‑conviction relief asserting actual innocence under Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.1(h) and arguing the State failed to identify an actual minor victim and failed to establish an adequate factual basis for the plea.
The superior court summarily denied the petition without an evidentiary hearing; Thompson sought review in the court of appeals.
The court of appeals granted review but denied relief, holding the State was not required to prove the actual identity (name and age) of the minor and that the prosecutor’s unchallenged factual description provided a sufficient factual basis for the Alford plea.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 32.1(h) actual‑innocence claim required State to prove identity/age of the minor in sexual exploitation prosecution	Thompson: State must show an actual living minor (name/age) to sustain conviction	State: statute does not require proof of the victim’s identity; image description may suffice	Court: Held State need not prove victim’s name/age; summary dismissal proper
Whether superior court had adequate factual basis to accept Thompson’s Alford plea under Ariz. R. Crim. P. 17.1(c)	Thompson: He lacked personal knowledge of the victim’s identity so factual basis was inadequate	State: Prosecutor’s description of the image (unchallenged by Thompson) provided strong evidence of every element	Court: Held the prosecutor’s description was sufficient to support the plea
Standard of review for post‑conviction denial and plea acceptance	Thompson: sought de novo or heightened review (implicit)	State: appellate review is abuse of discretion	Court: Applied abuse‑of‑discretion review for both rulings
Whether prior case law (Hazlett, Tschilar, Olquin) mandates identity requirement	Thompson: cited those cases to argue identity is required	State: those cases do not extend to §13‑3553 victim identity proof	Court: Rejected Thompson’s reading; declined to read identity requirement into statute

State v. Hazlett, 205 Ariz. 523 (App. 2003) (interpreting requirement of an actual living human being for certain offenses)
State v. Tschilar, 200 Ariz. 427 (App. 2001) (statutes referencing "another person" require a victim)
State v. Olquin, 216 Ariz. 250 (App. 2007) (offenses against "another person" require identity of victim)
State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390 (App. 2007) (appellate standard: review denial of post‑conviction relief for abuse of discretion)
State v. Ovante, 231 Ariz. 180 (2013) (trial court may accept plea when record contains strong evidence of guilt)
Cicoria v. Cole, 222 Ariz. 428 (App. 2009) (court will not read requirements into a statute that are not manifested by legislative intent)
State v. Anderson, 147 Ariz. 346 (1985) (plea of no contest is an admission of guilt)
North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) (court may accept guilty plea from a defendant who maintains innocence)