State v. Moninger

── State v. Moninger ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: May 29, 2026 Category: General 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. KEVIN HARRY MONINGER, Appellant. No. 1 CA-CR 24-0523 FILED 05-29-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County No. S8015CR201801598 The Honorable Derek C. Carlisle, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Harris & Winger, P.C., Flagstaff By Chad Joshua Harris Counsel for Appellant Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix By Casey D. Ball Counsel for Appellee  STATE v. MONINGER Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Veronika Fabian and Chief Judge Randall M. Howe joined. B R O W N, Judge: ¶1 Kevin Moninger appeals from his sentence imposed on his conviction for luring a minor. He challenges the superior court’s designation of his conviction as a dangerous crime against children (“DCAC”) because the purported minor involved was a police officer impersonating a minor. Because our supreme court recently held that the luring statute, A.R.S. § 13-3554, does not “require an actual minor victim” to support a DCAC sentencing enhancement, we affirm. See State v. Marner (Marner II), ___ Ariz. ___, ___, ¶¶ 46–47, 583 P.3d 53, 63 (2026). BACKGROUND ¶2 Moninger posted two classified ads on a website used to facilitate sexual encounters. State v. Moninger (Moninger II), 258 Ariz. 18, 20, ¶ 3 (2024). He received a response from an undercover officer posing as a 13-year-old girl named “Sabrina.” Id. Moninger and Sabrina exchanged emails for a few days and then began a texting conversation. Id. at ¶ 4. Over the course of three days, they exchanged many text messages. Id. at 20–21, ¶ 5. Moninger told Sabrina he wanted to meet her, and he made comments that could be understood as wanting to engage in sexual conduct with her. Id. at 20, ¶ 4. Sabrina agreed to meet Moninger. Id. at ¶ 5. ¶3 When Moninger drove to the arranged meeting spot, police officers arrested him. Id. at 21, ¶ 6. Under A.R.S. § 13-3554, the State charged him with three counts of luring a minor under the age of 15 for sexual exploitation. Id. The State also charged Moninger with one count of attempted sexual conduct with a minor, in violation of A.R.S. §§ 13-1001 and -1405. Id. ¶4 A jury found Moninger guilty of all charges. Id. at ¶ 7. The superior court sentenced him to consecutive prison terms as follows: count 1 (luring), 7 years; count 2 (luring), 7.5 years; count 3 (luring), 7.5 years; and count 4 (attempted sexual conduct with a minor), 9 years. The superior court designated all four offenses as DCAC under A.R.S. § 13-705. 2  STATE v. MONINGER Decision of the Court ¶5 Moninger appealed, and this court vacated two of his three luring convictions, concluding that the text messages did not comprise three “separate, distinct courses of conduct.” State v. Moninger (Moninger I), 251 Ariz. 487, 499, ¶ 45 (App. 2021), vacated, 258 Ariz. 18 (2024). This court also remanded for resentencing, noting the superior court could consider whether Moninger’s conviction for luring was probation eligible. Id. at 503, ¶¶ 60–61. ¶6 The supreme court affirmed this court’s decision vacating two luring convictions but vac