State v. Daniels

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

MARVIN RAY DANIELS, JR., Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 23-0032
FILED 4-11-2024

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2019-007244-001
The Honorable Joseph C. Kreamer, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Alice M. Jones
Counsel for Appellee

Mercer Law, PLC, Mesa
By Stephen N. Mercer
Counsel for Appellant
 STATE v. DANIELS
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge D. Steven Williams delivered the Court’s decision, in
which Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Paul J. McMurdie joined.

W I L L I A M S, Judge:

¶1 Defendant Marvin Ray Daniels Jr. appeals his convictions and
sentences for one count of first-degree murder and one count of aggravated
assault with a deadly weapon. Daniels’ counsel filed a brief per Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969),
advising us there are no meritorious grounds for reversal. Daniels was
given an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona but did
not do so. After reviewing the entire record for reversible error, State v.
Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999), we affirm Daniels’ convictions
and sentences.

FACTUAL1 AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Daniels and Sam2 had known each other since high school
and were both street gang members. Daniels was a member of a South
Phoenix street gang known as the Lindo Park Crips. Sam previously had
ties to that gang.

¶3 Each year, a football game is played at Lindo Park on
Thanksgiving morning (the “turkey bowl”). Community members attend
and/or participate in the game, as do members of the Lindo Park Crips. In
2019, in the days leading up to the game, Daniels made several Facebook
posts about the turkey bowl and his intentions to attend.

¶4 On Thanksgiving morning, Sam asked his mother to take him
to the park for the game. She agreed. On the way, they stopped and picked
up Sam’s friend Ben.3 As soon as Sam’s mother dropped the two friends off

1 “We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions

with all reasonable inferences resolved against the defendant.” State v.
Valencia, 186 Ariz. 493, 495 (App. 1996).

2 We use a pseudonym to protect the victim’s privacy. See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct.

111(i).
3 A pseudonym.

2
 STATE v. DANIELS
Decision of the Court

at the park, Daniels and others (who were allegedly also Lindo Park Crips)
quickly approached. A fight ensued. Daniels hit Ben in the head with a
handgun. Sam’s mother then watched as Daniels shot her son. Then, as Sam
lay face down on the pavement, Daniels stood over him and shot him in the
back of the head.

¶5 By the time officers responded, Daniels was gone. However,
police found 11 shell casings from a .40 caliber handgun and 5 more from a
9mm handgun. Daniels later admitted he owned a .40 caliber handgun
before the shooting.

¶6 That evening, Daniels slept at the apartment of his brother’s
friend. When the friend told Daniels the following morning that undercover
officers were outside, Daniels left the apartment and continued to evade
police. He left Phoenix with two women (both of whom he was
romantically involved with), and the three made plans to go to Chicago. On
their way, however, police stopped their vehicle about 3 hours outside of
Phoenix. Officers found Daniels hiding in the trunk of the car.

¶7 At trial, Daniels testified that he was not at the turkey bowl
on Thanksgiving morning but was instead selling drugs in Tempe.
However, he offered no other evidence to support his version of his
whereabouts.

¶8 The jury convicted Daniels of one count of first-degree
murder and one count of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The
trial court sentenced him as a dangerous, non-repetitive offender to natural
life in prison for first-degree murder and 7.5 years for aggravated assault
(with credit for 735 days of presentence incarceration).

¶9 Daniels timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under Article
6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1),
13-4031, and -4033(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶10 Our review reveals no fundamental error. See Leon, 104 Ariz.
at 300 (“An exhaustive search of the record has failed to produce any
prejudicial error.”). A person commits first-degree murder if “[i]ntending
or knowing that the person’s conduct will cause death, the person causes
the death of another person . . . with premeditation.” A.R.S. § 13-1105(A)(1).
A person commits aggravated assault with a deadly weapon by
“[i]ntentionally, knowingly or recklessly causing any physical injury to
another person” while using a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument.

3
 STATE v. DANIELS
Decision of the Court

A.R.S. § 13-1203(A)(1); A.R.S. § 13-1204(A)(2). The record contains sufficient
evidence upon which the jury could determine beyond a reasonable doubt
that Daniels was guilty of those offenses.

¶11 Further, all the proceedings were conducted in compliance
with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. So far as the record reveals,
Daniels was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings and was
present at all critical stages including the entire trial, the rendering of the
verdict, and sentencing. See State v. Conner, 163 Ariz. 97, 104 (1990) (right to
counsel at critical stages) (citations omitted); State v. Bohn, 116 Ariz. 500, 503
(1977) (right to be present at critical stages). The jury was properly
comprised of twelve jurors, and the record shows no evidence of juror
misconduct. See A.R.S. § 21-102; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 18.1(a). The trial court
properly instructed the jury on the elements of the charged offenses, the
State’s burden of proof, and Daniels’ presumption of innocence. At
sentencing, Daniels was given an opportunity to speak, and the court stated
on the record the evidence and materials it considered, including the factors
it found, in imposing the sentences. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 26.9, 26.10.
Additionally, the sentences imposed were within the statutory limits. See
A.R.S. §§ 13-701 through -718 (as applicable).

CONCLUSION

¶12 We affirm Daniels’ convictions and sentences. Defense
counsel’s obligations pertaining to Daniels’ representation in this appeal
have ended. Counsel need do no more than inform Daniels of the outcome
of this appeal and his future options, unless, upon review, counsel finds an
issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition
for review. State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584–85 (1984).

¶13 Daniels has thirty days from the date of this decision to
proceed, if he wishes, with an in propria persona petition for review to the
Arizona Supreme Court. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.21. Upon this Court’s own
motion, we also grant Daniels thirty days from the date of this decision to
file an in propria persona motion for reconsideration.

AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
FILED: AA

4