Jump To

Top Caption [Combined Opinion

                  by Samuel A. Thumma](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10811144/state-v-rix/#o1)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 19, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

State v. Rix

Court of Appeals of Arizona

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 1 CA-CR 24-0046

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (4)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (1.2K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

                        by [Samuel A. Thumma](https://www.courtlistener.com/person/6251/samuel-a-thumma/)

NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL
AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE
ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA,
Appellee,

v.

SEAN DAVID RIX,
Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 24-0046
FILED 03-19-2026

Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County
No. S8015CR201901104
The Honorable Lee Frank Jantzen, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Janelle A. McEachern, Chandler
Counsel for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Casey D. Ball
Counsel for Appellee
STATE v. RIX
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Judge Andrew M. Jacobs and Judge David D. Weinzweig joined.

T H U M M A, Judge:

¶1 This is an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969). Counsel for defendant Sean
David Rix initially advised the court that, after searching the entire record,
she found no arguable question of law and asked this court to conduct an
Anders review. Rix was given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief
but has not done so. This court has reviewed the record, including
supplemental briefing discussed below, and has found no reversible error.
Accordingly, Rix’s convictions and resulting sentence and probation grant
are affirmed.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 In 2019, a detective with the Mohave County Sheriff’s Office
conducted an undercover investigation targeting individuals who used the
internet to sexually exploit children. The detective created an online
persona posing as “Taylor Gates,” a 13-year-old minor female. There was,
in fact, no 13-year-old Taylor Gates; the officer created the fictional persona
as part of the undercover investigation. In response to that posting, an email
from “Bob Bobbers” requested models to pose for illicit photographs. In
April 2019, when Taylor Gates emailed asking “Do you like younger girls?,”
Bob Bobbers responded “Yeah, I do.” When Taylor Gates sent an email
stating “I’m 13. If you don’t care, then I don’t,” Bob Bobbers responded
“Pic?”

¶3 Later, Taylor Gates sent an email stating, “I’m 13, so if you’re
not cool with that, then bye.” Bob Bobbers responded, “I’m definitely cool
with that,” and asked to “meet up.” Four times, Bob Bobbers also asked for
illicit photos from Taylor Gates.

¶4 The detective obtained a search warrant for the Bob Bobbers’
email account. That search yielded a phone number and other identifying
information that were traced to Rix. When interviewed, Rix admitted using

2
STATE v. RIX
Decision of the Court

the Bob Bobbers name and email address in contacting the Taylor Gates
persona.

¶5 Rix was charged with two counts of attempted commercial
sexual exploitation of a minor, Class 3 felonies and dangerous crimes
against children (DCAC), committed in Mohave County in April and May
2019. After being convicted as charged at a March 2022 trial, those
convictions were reversed on appeal, resulting in a retrial. See State v. Rix,
256 Ariz. 125, 128 ¶ 1 (App. 2023). At that January 2024 retrial, a different
jury found Rix guilty as charged, also finding that Rix “knew or had reason
to know the purported minor was under 15 years of age.” The court later
sentenced Rix under the DCAC sentencing scheme to a mitigated term of
five years in prison, with 700 days of presentence incarceration credit for
Count 1, and a consecutive 15-year probation grant for Count 2.

¶6 This court has jurisdiction over Rix’s timely appeal under
Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised
Statutes (A.R.S.) §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and 13-4033(A)(1) (2026).1

DISCUSSION

¶7 The record shows that Rix was represented by counsel at all
stages of the proceedings and that counsel was present at all critical stages.
The record contains substantial evidence supporting the verdict. The
sentence and probation grant imposed was within statutory limits, and the
presentence incarceration credit awarded Rix was correct. In all other
respects, from the record presented, the proceedings were conducted in
compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.

¶8 In December 2024, this court stayed the appeal to allow
counsel for Rix to file a new opening brief addressing State v. Marner, 258
Ariz. 512 (App. 2024), which found that a DCAC sentencing enhancement
requires an actual minor victim under 15 years of age, not an adult police
officer posing as a child online. Counsel for Rix filed that brief in January
2025 and the State filed an answering brief in March 2025. In April 2025,
after the Arizona Supreme Court granted review in Marner, this court
stayed this appeal. In January 2026, the Arizona Supreme Court issued State
v. Marner, holding that luring a minor for sexual exploitation where the
victim is a fictitious minor (as in this case) qualifies for a DCAC “sentencing
enhancement.” ___ Ariz. __, __ ¶ 1, 583 P.3d 53, 55 (2026).

1 Absent material revisions after the relevant dates, statutes and rules cited

refer to the current version unless otherwise indicated.

3
STATE v. RIX
Decision of the Court

¶9 This court allowed both parties to file supplemental briefs
addressing the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision in Marner. Rix’s counsel
relied on the previous briefing, while the State argued Marner applies and
this court should affirm the DCAC enhancements applied by the superior
court. Given the Arizona Supreme Court’s opinion in Marner, sentencing
Rix using the DCAC enhancements was not error.

CONCLUSION

¶10 This court has read and considered counsel’s briefs and has
searched the record provided for reversible error and has found none. See
Leon, 104 Ariz. at 298-300; State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537 ¶ 30 (App. 1999).
Accordingly, Rix’s convictions and resulting sentences are affirmed.

¶11 Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel is directed to
inform Rix of the status of the appeal and of his future options. Defense
counsel has no further obligations unless, upon review, counsel identifies
an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by
petition for review. State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584–85 (1984). Rix shall
have 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a
pro se motion for reconsideration or petition for review.

MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court
FILED: TM

4