STATE OF ARIZONA v. DANNY JAMES SIMMONS
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 DEC 17 2010 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. DANNY JAMES SIMMONS, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 CA-CR 2010-0213 DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY Cause No. CR20094200002 Honorable John S. Leonardo, Judge AFFIRMED Isabel G. Garcia, Pima County Legal Defender By Alex Heveri Tucson Attorneys for Appellant E C K E R S T R O M, Judge. ¶1 Following a three-day jury trial, appellant Danny Simmons was convicted of two counts each of armed robbery and aggravated assault, and one count of aggravated robbery, all of which were dangerous offenses. The trial court sentenced Simmons to concurrent terms of imprisonment, the longest being eleven years, with credit for 230 days served. 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 she has thoroughly reviewed the record and has found no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. Counsel has asked us to search the record for error. Simmons has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶2 Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdicts, the evidence was sufficient to support each of the jury s findings of guilt, see State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999), and the sentences are within the statutory limits. In October 2009, two men entered a bank located inside a Tucson grocery store and demanded money at gunpoint from two of the tellers. The tellers gave the men bait money, which consists of money bearing recorded serial numbers that is placed in a bag with a tracking device. Police tracked the bait money to Simmons and his codefendant, both of whom were found with large amounts of cash, including bait money, in their pockets. In addition, one of the bank s tracking devices was found in the back seat of a vehicle temporarily registered to Simmons. ¶3 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental, reversible error and have found none. Therefore, we affirm Simmons s convictions and sentences. /s/ Peter J. Eckerstrom PETER J. ECKERSTROM, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ Garye L. Vásquez GARYE L. Và SQUEZ, Presiding Judge /s/ Virginia C. Kelly VIRGINIA C. KELLY, Judge 2
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.
