State v. McDaniel
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOTICE: 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 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, ) ) Appellee, ) ) v. ) ) JUSTIN DALE MCDANIEL, ) ) Appellant. ) ) __________________________________) 1 CA-CR 11-0294 Department D DIVISION ONE FILED: 03/20/2012 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: DLL MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for PublicationRule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court of Maricopa County Cause No. CR2010-140591-001DT Lisa Ann Vandenberg, Commissioner AFFIRMED Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals Section Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender by Christopher V. Johns, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix T H O M P S O N, Presiding 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 Justin Dale McDaniel (defendant) has advised us that, after searching the entire record, he has been unable to discover any arguable questions of law and has filed a brief requesting Anders review of the record. this court conduct an Defendant has been afforded an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propia persona, and he has not done so. ¶2 Defendant was discovered removing a piece of air conditioning equipment from the fenced yard of a residential house on a dolly. The renter who discovered him told him to put it back and took a picture of defendant and defendant s vehicle. Defendant left the equipment and drove off. police located defendant who admitted Using the photos, trespassing with the intent of taking the machinery for scrap; defendant asserted he thought the house was abandoned. count of burglary in the Defendant was charged with one third degree, a class 4 felony. Defendant was convicted after a jury trial and he received a suspended sentence probation. county jail. ¶3 with two years of intensive supervised One term of the probation was serving a month in Defendant timely appealed. We have read and considered counsel s brief and have searched the entire record for reversible error. Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. We find none. See Leon, 104 All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the sentence imposed was within the 2 statutory limits. 584-85, 684 P.2d Pursuant to State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 154, 156-57 (1984), defendant s counsel s obligations in this appeal are at an end. ¶4 We affirm the conviction and sentence. /s/ ________________________________ JON W. THOMPSON, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ___________________________________ MAURICE PORTLEY, Judge /s/ __________________________________ JOHN C. GEMMILL, Judge 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
