State v. Daniel

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. ) ) CARLOS LEVELLE DANIEL, ) ) Appellant. ) _________________________________ ) 1 CA-CR 10-0244 DIVISION ONE FILED: 05/26/2011 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: DLL DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court of Maricopa County Cause No. CR2009-110586-002DT The Honorable Lisa Roberts, Commissioner AFFIRMED Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General Phoenix By Kent Cattani, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals and Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee Bruce F. Peterson, Legal Advocate By Consuelo M. Ohanesian, Deputy Legal Advocate Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix T H O M P S O N, 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. aggravated Defendant was sentenced to concurrent 18 year sentences with two 251 slightlydays 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. 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. So far as the record sentence imposed was within the statutory limits. 2 reveals the 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. /s/ _____________________________ JON W. THOMPSON, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ___________________________________ PHILIP HALL, Presiding Judge /s/ ___________________________________ LAWRENCE F. WINTHROP, 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.