Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Robert Armendaris, Petitioner v. Arizona

No. 25-_______

In the

Supreme Court of the United States

_____________________________

Robert Armendaris,

Petitioner,

v.

State of Arizona,

Respondent.

_____________________________

Appendix

_____________________________

Randal McDonald

Post-Conviction Clinic

ASU Sandra Day O’Connor

College of Law

111 E. Taylor St.

Phoenix, AZ 85004

Randal.McDonald@ASU.edu

Mikel Steinfeld

Counsel of Record

Office of the Maricopa County

Public Defender

620 W. Jackson, Ste. 4015

Phoenix, AZ 85003

602-506-7711

Mikel.Steinfeld@Maricopa.gov

APPENDIX CONTENTS

Appendix Page

Appendix A: State v. Armendaris, Arizona Court of Appeals Opinion ...................... 1a

Appendix B: State v. Armendaris, Order of Arizona Supreme Court denying

review ........................................................................................................................... 8a

1a

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee,

v.

ROBERT ARMENDARIS, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 24-0267

FILED 03-13-2025

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2023-006577-001

The Honorable Michael W. Kemp, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Tucson

By Jacob R. Lines

Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix

By Damon A. Rossi

Counsel for Appellant

2a

STATE v. ARMENDARIS

Opinion of the Court

OPINION

Chief Judge David B. Gass delivered the opinion of the court, in which

Presiding Judge Brian Y. Furuya and Vice Chief Judge Randall M. Howe

joined.

G A S S, Chief Judge:

¶1

Defendant Robert Armendaris appeals his convictions and

sentences for luring a minor for sexual exploitation and attempted sexual

conduct with a minor.

¶2

Armendaris’s convictions arise out of his online

communications with an adult undercover officer who posed as a minor on

a website. Under Article II, Section 23 of the Arizona Constitution,

Armendaris was entitled to a jury of 8 people because he did not face a

sentence of at least 30 years. Even so, Armendaris asked the superior court

to empanel a 12-person jury, arguing it was a requirement of the Sixth

Amendment of the United States Constitution. The superior court denied

the request, which Armendaris claims was error. Armendaris also argues

the superior court should have allowed him to elicit testimony about

whether the undercover officer committed the crime of computer

tampering when she lied about her age.

¶3

Because the superior court did not err, Armendaris’s

convictions and sentences are affirmed.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶4

An undercover police officer created an account on an adult

website called MocoSpace. The police officer posed as a 16-year-old girl

named “Nancy” and used an age-regressed picture of herself for the profile.

Because the website’s terms of use forbid minors from creating accounts,

she listed her age on the website as 18 years old.

¶5

Armendaris began a conversation with “Nancy” on

MocoSpace. After exchanging some messages, he asked how old she was.

She told him she was 16. They exchanged phone numbers and continued

chatting through text messages and MocoSpace. Armendaris asked

“Nancy” if she wanted to meet in person, and they made plans to meet.

¶6

The two sent multiple messages asking each other what they

wanted to do when they met. At first, Armendaris suggested going to a

2

3a

STATE v. ARMENDARIS

Opinion of the Court

restaurant, a movie, or “Nancy’s” apartment. She replied, saying a movie

was boring and she liked to have fun. He asked if she meant “kissing,

hugging, that kind of fun.” She responded with a smiley face and he asked

if having sex was the kind of fun she was talking about. When she

responded with a smiley face and hearts, he replied: “Is that what you

want? I’m okay with that.” She replied she did not want to be “16 and

pregnant.” He then asked if he should bring condoms.

¶7

They agreed to meet at “Nancy’s” apartment. When

Armendaris arrived at the apartment complex, the police arrested him and

searched his vehicle. They found no condoms, but they did find a cell phone

Armendaris used to communicate with “Nancy.”

¶8

The officer who posed as “Nancy” interrogated Armendaris

at the police station. Armendaris said he did not believe “Nancy” was 16

years old because Internet users often are not truthful. He also claimed he

would have left if she had been 16.

¶9

The State indicted Armendaris for luring a minor for sexual

exploitation, a class 3 felony, and attempted sexual conduct with a minor, a

class 1 misdemeanor. Armendaris moved for a 12-person jury, which the

superior court denied following oral argument.

¶10

The superior court seated an 8-person jury for Armendaris’s

2-day trial. During the trial, defense counsel questioned the undercover

officer about how impersonating “Nancy” violated the MocoSpace terms of

use. But the superior court precluded him from asking about whether the

officer’s conduct amounted to the crime of computer tampering, reasoning

it did not “appl[y] to the facts . . . .”

¶11

The jury convicted Armendaris on both counts. The superior

court suspended his sentence and imposed a term of lifetime supervised

probation for the class 3 felony and a 2-month jail term for the class 1

misdemeanor. The superior court also required Armendaris to register as a

sex offender.

¶12

The court has jurisdiction over Armendaris’s timely appeal

under Article VI, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S.

§§ 12-120.21.A, 13-4031, and -4033.A.1.

3

4a

STATE v. ARMENDARIS

Opinion of the Court

DISCUSSION

I.

Armendaris was not entitled to a 12-person jury.

¶13

Armendaris argues the Sixth Amendment of the United States

Constitution required the superior court to try him to a 12-person (not

8-person) jury. The court reviews “constitutional issues and purely legal

issues de novo.” State v. Moody, 208 Ariz. 424, 445 ¶ 62 (2004). Because

Armendaris raised this issue before the superior court, the court conducts

a harmless error review in which the State bears the burden “to prove

beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to or affect the

verdict or sentence.” State v. Strong, ___ Ariz. ___, ___ ¶ 45, 555 P.3d 537,

553 (Ariz. 2024) (quoting State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 567 ¶ 18 (2005)).

¶14

Armendaris is not the first defendant to raise this issue. In the

past four years, four other defendants have made similar arguments. The

court rejected those arguments in unpublished memorandum decisions.

The Arizona Supreme Court declined to accept review in all four, and the

United States Supreme Court denied certiorari in one. 1

¶15

The Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants “the

right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.” U.S. Const. amend.

VI. The Sixth Amendment applies to the states through the Fourteenth

Amendment. See Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 86 (1970). More than 50

years ago, the United States Supreme Court ruled the Sixth Amendment

does not require a 12-person jury. Id. (“hold[ing] that the 12-man panel is

not a necessary ingredient of ‘trial by jury’”). Two years later, Arizona

voters amended the Arizona Constitution to permit fewer than 12 jurors in

criminal cases when the maximum permitted sentence is less than 30 years.

Ariz. Const. art. II, § 23 (amended 1972); see State v. Soliz, 223 Ariz. 116, 118

¶ 6 (2009).

¶16

Since then, the Arizona Supreme Court discussed Williams

and said the Arizona legislature “reserved the 12-person jury only for the

State v. Jose, 2 CA-CR 2023-0224, 2024 WL 2118759, at *3–4 (Ariz. App.

May 10, 2024) (mem. decision) (review denied Dec. 13, 2024); State v.

Zamanzadeh, 1 CA-CR 23-0080, 2024 WL 380014, at *1 (Ariz. App. Feb. 1,

2024) (mem. decision) (review denied Aug. 19, 2024); State v. Richardson, 1

CA-CR 22-0321, 2023 WL 5934909, at *1 (Ariz. App. Sept. 12, 2023) (mem.

decision) (review denied June 3, 2024); State v. Khorrami, 1 CA-CR 20-0088,

2021 WL 3197499, at *8 (Ariz. App. July 29, 2021) (mem. decision) (review

denied Feb. 8, 2022), cert. denied, Khorrami v. Arizona, 143 S. Ct. 22 (2022).

1

4

5a

STATE v. ARMENDARIS

Opinion of the Court

most serious offenses,” as measured “by the potential sentence upon

conviction.” Soliz, 223 Ariz. at 118 ¶ 7 (discussing A.R.S. § 21-102). Section

21-102 requires a 12-person jury in criminal cases “in which a sentence of

death or imprisonment for thirty years or more is authorized by law” and

an 8-person jury in “any other criminal case.” A.R.S. § 21-102.A, -.B. The

Arizona Supreme Court concluded Arizona’s jury laws passed

Sixth-Amendment muster under Williams. See Soliz, 223 Ariz. at 118 ¶¶ 6

–7.

¶17

Despite this 50-plus-year history of express precedent,

Armendaris argues the United States Supreme Court “effectively

overruled” Williams in Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. 83 (2020). But Ramos did

not address jury size. Instead, Ramos ruled the Sixth Amendment required

unanimous jury verdicts in criminal cases. 590 U.S. at 93. Though nothing

in Ramos suggests the United States Supreme Court was abrogating the

Williams holding regarding a 12-person jury, Armendaris argues Ramos

abrogated the reasoning underlying Williams such that it is no longer

controlling precedent.

¶18

Armendaris then argues, under Ramos, the court should look

“at what the phrase trial by an impartial jury” meant at the time of the Sixth

Amendment’s adoption. Based on sources explaining the understanding of

“impartial jury” in English common law and even post-ratification of the

Sixth Amendment by the United States of America, he argues the phrase

“meant [12] jurors” at the time of ratification. See Robert H. Miller, Six of

One Is Not A Dozen of the Other: A Reexamination of Williams v. Florida and

the Size of State Criminal Juries, 146 U. Pa. L. Rev. 621, 643 (1998); see also

James B. Thayer, The Jury and Its Development, 5 Harv. L. Rev. 295, 297 (1892).

¶19

But even if the Arizona Supreme Court or United States

Supreme Court ultimately agrees with Armendaris’ position, this court is

bound by the holdings in Williams and Soliz. Arizona courts must follow

United States Supreme Court precedent “with regard to the interpretation

of the federal constitution.” See Pool v. Superior Ct., 139 Ariz. 98, 108 (1984);

see also Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203, 207 (1997) (saying courts should not

conclude the United States Supreme Court has overruled its earlier

precedent by implication, “[r]ather, lower courts should follow the case

which directly controls”). Williams still holds today. See Khorrami v. Arizona,

143 S. Ct. 22, 23 (Gorsuch, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari)

(“Regrettably, the Court today declines to take up” reconsidering Williams).

And this court is bound by the decisions of the Arizona Supreme Court. See

State v. Smyers, 207 Ariz. 314, 318 ¶ 15 n.4 (2004); see also Soliz, 223 Ariz. at

118 ¶¶ 6–7 (recognizing the holding in Williams).

5

6a

STATE v. ARMENDARIS

Opinion of the Court

¶20

At bottom, Armendaris faced no more than 8.75 years in

prison for count 1 and no more than 6 months in jail for count 2. See A.R.S.

§§ 13-702, -707, -1405.B, -3554.C. Because the maximum possible sentence

was less than 30 years, he was not entitled to a 12-person jury. See Ariz.

Const. art. II, § 23; A.R.S. § 21-102; Soliz, 223 Ariz. at 118 ¶¶ 6–7. Based on

controlling precedent, Armendaris has not established error.

II.

The superior court did not err when it precluded questioning

about the crime of computer tampering.

¶21

Armendaris argues the superior court erred when it

precluded his testimony about whether the officer’s conduct amounted to

the crime of computer tampering. He argues precluding that line of

questioning prevented him from presenting a complete defense because

“he sought to show that persons such as [Armendaris] would plausibly not

expect a minor on MocoSpace because obtaining a user profile would

perhaps be illegal.”

¶22

The court reviews the superior court’s evidentiary rulings for

an abuse of discretion. State v. Blakley, 204 Ariz. 429, 437 ¶ 34 (2003). Because

Armendaris raised this issue before the superior court, the court conducts

a harmless error review. See Strong, ___ Ariz. at ___ ¶ 45, 555 P.3d at 553.

¶23

Armendaris elicited testimony from the officer conceding she

violated MocoSpace’s terms of use by lying about her age and

impersonating another person when she created a false profile. The officer

further admitted she agreed under the terms not to promote false or

misleading information, and if an underage “Nancy” pretended to be 18

years old on MocoSpace, she would be “committing a crime in Arizona.”

¶24

With the above evidence admitted, the superior court did not

err when it precluded Armendaris from questioning the officer about the

specific crime of computer tampering. Armendaris does not establish how

the crime would have applied to the officer’s acts. And even if it would

have, the superior court “could have precluded [the testimony] on the

ground that [it] was so marginally relevant and cumulative of stronger

testimony that its probative value was substantially outweighed by

considerations of delay and confusion.” State v. Wargo, 145 Ariz. 589, 589

–90 (App. 1985); see also Ariz. R. Evid. 403. Armendaris has shown no error.

6

7a

STATE v. ARMENDARIS

Opinion of the Court

CONCLUSION

¶25

Armendaris’s convictions and sentences are affirmed.

MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court

FILED:

JR

7

8a

October 6, 2025

RE:

STATE OF ARIZONA v ROBERT ARMENDARIS

Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-25-0094-PR

Court of Appeals, Division One No. 1 CA-CR 24-0267

Maricopa County Superior Court No. CR2023-006577-001

GREETINGS:

The following action was taken by the Arizona Supreme Court on

October 3, 2025, regarding the above-referenced cause:

ORDERED: Petition for Review = DENIED.

Aaron C. Nash, Clerk

TO:

Alice Jones

Jacob R. Lines

Damon A. Rossi

Matthew J. Martin

eg