Skyler V. Wright

Sources

1. MUGSHOTS: 24 suspects arrested in East Valley child sex sting, 12 News, September 11, 2018.
2. STATE v. WRIGHT Full Name: STATE v. WRIGHT Docket Number: 1 CA-CR 21-0005 Date: June 2, 2022, Justia Law, June 2, 2022.
3. 24 arrested in East Valley child sex crimes operation, ABC 15, September 11, 2018.
4. Undercover operation leads to 24 arrests in child sex crimes, AZ Central, September 11, 2018.

• 1. MUGSHOTS: 24 suspects arrested in East Valley child sex sting

  • 20180911
  • News article
  • 12 News

  • original
  • archived
  • back to list

  An undercover investigation into child sex crimes and human trafficking in the Valley resulted in the arrest of 24 suspects, the Mesa Police Department said.

  According to Mesa police, during the six-day operation officers and detectives placed ads on websites "commonly sought out by suspects seeking illegal sex acts."

  Each of the 24 suspects, according to Mesa police, either solicited or brokered deals for various illegal sex acts.

  The two dozen suspects are facing a wide-range of different charges from luring and sex trafficking, to sex abuse, sexual exploitation of a minor, money laundering and furnishing to a minor.

  The suspects ranged in age from 21 to 80 years old, police said

  Operation Degrossting, which ran for six days between Aug. 21 and Aug. 31, was conducted in partnership with the Tempe, Gilbert, Chandler Police Departments as well as the Attorney General’s Office

• 2. STATE v. WRIGHT Full Name: STATE v. WRIGHT Docket Number: 1 CA-CR 21-0005 Date: June 2, 2022

  • 20220602
  • Court record
  • Justia Law

  • original
  • archived
  • back to list

  NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee,v.SKYLER WRIGHT, Appellant.No. 1 CA-CR 21-0005 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa CountyNo. CR 2019-006584-001The Honorable Stephen M. Hopkins, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix By Linley Wilson Counsel for Appellee Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix By Mark E. Dwyer Counsel for Appellant Skyler Wright, Mesa Appellant FILED 6-2-2022
  STATE v. WRIGHT Decision of the Court2MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Jennifer B. Campbell delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge James B. Morse Jr. joined.C A M P B E L L,Judge:¶1This appeal is presented to us pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969). Defense counsel has searched the record on appeal and advised us there are no meritorious grounds for reversal. Skyler Wright was given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief and has done so. Our obligation is to review the entire record for reversible error, State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999), viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the conviction and resolving all reasonable inferences against Wright. State v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 293 (1989). ¶2In August 2018, Wright responded to a Craigslist ad posted by the Mesa Police Department as part of a sting operation, intended to reduce the demand of child sex trafficking and prostitution online.The ad stated: “Talked to a nice male the other day at Starbucks about teaching my kids. I lost your number. . . . Hope you are here!!!Please reply. I need help!And you were so nice!”Wright responded to the ad and began communicating via email and text messages with an undercover police officer who was pretending to be the mother of a minor girl.The undercover officer asked if Wright was okay with condoms and if he would be able to help them out financially, and Wright agreed to both. ¶3Later that day,Wright agreed to go to the undercover officer’s home to meet the “daughter.” The home was a rental property used by Mesa Police for sting operations, equipped with video surveillance equipment and interview rooms.When Wright arrived, he spoke with the undercover officer and met the “daughter.”The undercover officer asked about Wright’s sexual experiences and whether he would be willing to help her with money.Wright indicated that he was interested in dating the “daughter” and eventually engaging in sexual conduct with her.The undercover officer then gave an arrest signal, and Wright was taken into custody

  STATE v. WRIGHT Decision of the Court3¶4The State charged Wright with one count of solicitation to commit child sex trafficking and one count of attempted money laundering, both class four felonies. See A.R.S. §§ 13-3212, -2317, -1002, -1001.Wright waived his right to a trial by jury and the judge found his waiver to be knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.A two-day bench trial was held.The State introduced testimony from the undercover officer pretending to be the “mother,” and another detective who subsequently interviewed Wright.The State also introduced evidence of Wright’s emails, text messages, and phone calls with the undercover officer, as well as video recordings of Wright meeting the undercover officer and the “daughter,” his arrest, and interview.The judge found Wright guilty of both charges and a sentencing hearing was held on December 17, 2020.1Wright was placed on four years of supervised probation. ¶5Wright’s counsel filed a notice of appeal, but the following month filed a motion to withdraw as counsel, which the superior court granted.Wright moved to appear as indigent but did not submit the required affidavit of financial information, and the court denied his motion. As a result, the court of appeals dismissed Wright’s appeal due to lack of counsel and failure to make financial arrangements for transcripts of the record. Wright then filed a second motion to proceed as indigent,this time including the required affidavit.The superior court granted his motion to proceed and we issued an order reinstating Wright’s appeal and appointing counsel for him. ¶6Wright filed a supplemental pro per brief.He argues that the evidence does not support his conviction for solicitation or attempt, as defined by §§13-1001 and -1002, and the judge abused his discretion in finding Wright guilty of the charged offenses.He contends that there was no explicit statement that he would engage in sexual conduct with the minor, and that he never agreed to a fee arrangement or to exchange any other valuable consideration.The evidence showed, however, that Wright responded to a Craigslist ad about teaching the undercover officer’s “daughter.”He knew the “daughter” was 14years old, and that he told the undercover officer that he wanted to have sex with the “daughter” down the road.The sexual nature of this exchange is further supported by his acquiescence that he was okay with using condoms.After the discussion of 1An initial sentencing hearing was held on December 1, 2020 but was rescheduled to allow the parties to negotiate the terms of probation, specifically whether Wright could be required to register as a sexual offender, whether there should be any incarceration requirement, and an assessment for the address confidentiality program

  STATE v. WRIGHT Decision of the Court4the sexual education of the “daughter,”Wright agreed to give the undercover officer money at some point in the future. ¶7After a thorough review of the record, we find no reversible error. Clark, 196 Ariz. at 541, ¶ 50. The record reflects Wright was present and represented by counsel at all critical stages of the proceedings against him.The evidence presented supports the convictions,and the sentences imposed fall within the range permitted by law.As far as the record reveals, these proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure and Wright’s constitutional and statutory rights.Therefore, we affirm Wright’s convictions and sentences. ¶8Unless defense counsel finds an issue that may be appropriately submitted to the Arizona Supreme Court, his obligations are fulfilled once he informs Wright of the outcome of this appeal and his future options.State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584–85(1984). Wright has 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he wishes, with a pro per motion for reconsideration or petition for review.

• 3. 24 arrested in East Valley child sex crimes operation

  • 20180911
  • News article
  • ABC 15

  • original
  • archived
  • back to list

  multi-agency operation to crack down on child sex crimes coined "Operation Degrossting," has resulted in the arrest of 24 suspects.
  PHOTOS: See mug shots of 24 men arrested

  According to the Mesa Police Department, they partnered with the Tempe, Gilbert and Chandler Police Departments as well as the Attorney General’s Office as part of the undercover operation.

  Over a recent six-day period, undercover detectives placed ads on websites commonly used by suspects looking to perform illegal sex acts, particularly with children.

  Mesa police say all 24 suspects solicited or made deals for various sex acts with the undercover detectives before they were arrested.

  Suspects in this case range from the age of 21 to 80 years old.

  "Crimes involving children are of the highest priority and I appreciate our partnership with all the agencies involved in the successful removal of these dangerous child predators from our community," said Mesa Police Chief Ramon Batista.

  To date, 42 charges have been filed against the 24 suspects. Those charges include luring, child sex crimes, marijuana sale, and resisting arrest among others.

  Details on all 24 arrests can be found HERE on the Mesa police crime blog.

  The Mesa Police Department is urging anyone who has information about someone being trafficked to contact your local police department or the National Human Trafficking Hotline at 888-373-7888 or humantraffickinghotline.org.

• 4. Undercover operation leads to 24 arrests in child sex crimes

  • 20180911
  • News article
  • AZ Central

  • original
  • archived
  • back to list

  Local law-enforcement agencies made 24 arrests during a six-day period as part of an undercover operation targeting child sex crimes.

  Mesa Police Department joined with Tempe, Gilbert and Chandler police departments as well as the Attorney General’s Office to conduct the operation, Mesa police officials announced Tuesday in a news release.

  "Officers and undercover detectives placed ads on websites commonly sought out by suspects seeking illegal sex acts," the release said.

  Officials say the suspects, who ranged from 21 to 80 years old, were arrested after being suspected of soliciting and/or brokering deals for various sex acts.

  A list of the suspects' names and charges can be viewed here.

  "Crimes involving children are of the highest priority and I appreciate our partnership with all the agencies involved in the successful removal of these dangerous child predators from our community," said Ramon Batista, chief of police for the Mesa Police Department, in the news release.

  Mesa Police Department said it conducts similar operations every year to reduce the demand for child and human sex trafficking in the area.

  Officials urge anyone with information about someone being trafficked to contact their local police department or the National Human Trafficking Hotline at 888-373-7888 or humantraffickinghotline.org.