State v. Watt
1 CA-CR 16-0451
Ariz. Ct. App.Feb 2, 2017Background
- In 2008 Watt’s stepdaughter L.S. disclosed past sexual abuse; authorities interviewed her but Watt was not charged then.
- In 2013 Watt, appearing suicidal, went to a hospital where he made statements to his ex‑wife (J.F.) and a security officer (R.C.) admitting he had abused his stepdaughter and that he had lied to a detective.
- L.S. testified at trial that Watt had sexually abused her repeatedly from about 2004–2006 beginning when she was eight.
- An eight‑member jury convicted Watt of Continuous Sexual Abuse of a Child (A.R.S. § 13‑1417).
- The superior court sentenced Watt to the presumptive 20‑year term with 105 days’ credit.
- Watt’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief asserting no meritorious issues; Watt did not file a pro se supplemental brief. The court reviewed the record for fundamental error and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial contained reversible/fundamental error | State: trial was fair; procedures correct | Watt: counsel raised no nonfrivolous issues (Anders) | No fundamental error; conviction affirmed |
| Sufficiency of evidence to support conviction | State: testimony (L.S.) + admissions support verdict | Watt: argued no viable issues on appeal | Evidence was substantial and supports verdict |
| Jury composition/instructions/unanimity | State: jury properly composed and instructed | Watt: no challenge raised on appeal | Jury size and instructions were proper; unanimity requirement met |
| Sentencing procedures and rights at sentencing | State: presentence report considered; sentence within range | Watt: no timely challenge raised on appeal | Sentence procedurally proper and within lawful range |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (standards for counsel to file a brief when no nonfrivolous issues exist)
- Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (Ariz. 1969) (Arizona practice for appellate counsel’s Anders brief and court review)
- Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582 (Ariz. 1984) (counsel’s post‑appeal duties to inform client and potential petition for review)
- Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289 (Ariz. 1989) (viewing trial facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict)