Background
Todd Hezlitt, a registered sex offender, listed a remote parcel near Heber, Arizona, as his Navajo County residence in April and August 2024. A sheriff’s deputy visited the property in October 2024 and January 2025 and found no signs that anyone lived there: the unfinished cabin lacked utilities, heat, furniture, and other indications of habitation, and the motor home was unusable.
After the second visit, the State charged Hezlitt with failing to notify the sheriff of a change of address. At trial, the State offered the deputy’s testimony, photographs, and body-camera footage. The jury convicted Hezlitt, and the superior court imposed a two-year, nine-month prison sentence.
The Court’s Holding
The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that the evidence permitted a reasonable jury to infer that Hezlitt moved away from his registered Heber residence between October 2024 and January 2025 without notifying the sheriff. The State did not have to prove the particular address to which he moved; the statute required notice after moving to or from a residence, including a temporary residence.
The court also rejected Hezlitt’s claims concerning trial evidence and jury instructions. Referring to him as a registered sex offender did not violate the order excluding the nature of his underlying convictions because his registration status was an element of the charged offense. And the trial court properly gave a supplemental instruction defining “transient” after the jury’s questions showed confusion about the statutory definition of residence.
Key Takeaways
- A conviction for failing to report a residence change can rest on evidence that a registrant moved away from the reported address; the State need not identify the new address.
- Evidence of registered-sex-offender status may be admitted when it is necessary to establish an element, while details of the underlying sex offenses remain excluded.
- A court may provide a legally accurate clarifying instruction when deliberating jurors misunderstand an existing instruction.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that Arizona’s address-change reporting requirement applies when a registrant leaves a residence, even temporarily. Circumstantial evidence showing a listed property was uninhabited can support the inference that the registrant moved and failed to report the change.
This memorandum decision is not precedential under Arizona Supreme Court Rule 111(c) and may be cited only as authorized by that rule.