Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

STATE v. DANIEL, 1 CA-CR 10-0244. (2011)

Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Number: inazco20110526007 Visitors: 7
Filed: May 26, 2011
Latest Update: May 26, 2011
Summary: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24. MEMORANDUM DECISION THOMPSON, Judge. 1 This case comes to us as an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon , 104 Ariz. 297 , 451 P.2d 878 (1969). Counsel for Carlos Levelle Daniel (defendant) has advised us that, after searching the entire record, she has been unable to
More

THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

THOMPSON, Judge.

¶1 This case comes to us as an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969). Counsel for Carlos Levelle Daniel (defendant) has advised us that, after searching the entire record, she has been unable to discover any arguable questions of law and has filed a brief requesting this court to conduct an Anders review of the record. Defendant has been afforded an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, and he has not done so. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Defendant was charged with two counts of sale or transportation of narcotic drugs, a class 2 felony after making sales of crack cocaine to two undercover officers on or about February 5, 2009. Defendant was sentenced to two slightly-aggravated concurrent 18 year sentences with 251 days of presentence incarceration credit. Defendant timely appealed his convictions and sentences. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9 of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031 and -4033(A)(1) (2010).

¶3 We have read and considered counsel's brief and have searched the entire record for reversible error. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. We find none. All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. So far as the record reveals the sentence imposed was within the statutory limits. Pursuant to State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984), defendant's counsel's obligations in this appeal are at an end.

¶4 We affirm the convictions and sentences.

PHILIP HALL, Presiding Judge, LAWRENCE F. WINTHROP, Judge, Concurring.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer