STATE OF ARIZONA v. DARRICK JAMAL DAVIS
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 FILED BY CLERK SEP 12 2012 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. DARRICK JAMAL DAVIS, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 CA-CR 2011-0197 DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF COCHISE COUNTY Cause No. CR201000613 Honorable Wallace R. Hoggatt, Judge AFFIRMED Zohlmann Law Offices By Robert J. Zohlmann Cortez, FL Attorney for Appellant K E L L Y, Judge. ¶1 Darrick Davis was convicted after a jury trial of armed robbery, aggravated robbery, aggravated assault, and two counts of disorderly conduct, all dangerous offenses. He was sentenced to concurrent prison terms, the longest of which was nine years. Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999), stating he has reviewed the entire record but has found no tenable issue to raise on appeal and asking this court to review the record for potential error. Davis has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶2 We view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdicts. State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999). That evidence shows that Davis, along with two codefendants, robbed a couple and their daughter at gunpoint outside a shopping mall, with one of the defendants pushing the barrel of an assault rifle into a victim s midsection while demanding that he [e]mpty [his] pockets. We conclude the evidence was sufficient to support the jury s verdicts. See A.R.S. §§ 13-105(13), 13-1203(A)(2), 13-1204(A)(2), 13-1902(A), 13-1903(A), 13-1904(A)(1), 13-2904(A)(6). ¶3 Davis s counsel identifies three possible areas presenting legal issues which may have been suitable as appellate issues, to wit, whether the trial court properly denied Davis s motions to exclude certain witnesses based on purportedly incomplete disclosure by the state, as well as his motion pursuant to Rule 20, Ariz. R. Crim. P., for a judgment of acquittal and his motion for a new trial. We have reviewed these possible issues and agree with counsel that they do not present viable claims of error on appeal. ¶4 Davis s sentences were within the prescribed statutory range and were imposed lawfully. See A.R.S. §§ 13-704(A), 13-1204(D), 13-1903(B), 13-1904, 132904(B). Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental, reversible error and have found none. See State v. Fuller, 143 Ariz. 571, 2 573, 575, 694 P.2d 1185, 1187, 1189 (1985) (Anders requires court to search record for fundamental error). Therefore, Davis s convictions and sentences are affirmed. /s/ Virginia C. Kelly VIRGINIA C. KELLY, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ Garye L. Vásquez GARYE L. Và SQUEZ, Presiding Judge /s/ Philip G. Espinosa PHILIP G. ESPINOSA, 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.
