STATE OF ARIZONA v. DANIEL CLAY COPELAND

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. DANIEL CLAY COPELAND, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2017-0080 Filed December 1, 2017 THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24. Appeal from the Superior Court in Pinal County No. S1100CR201502035 The Honorable Joseph R. Georgini, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Mark Brnovich, Arizona Attorney General Joseph T. Maziarz, Chief Counsel, Phoenix By Diane Leigh Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Tucson Counsel for Appellee Rowley Long & Simmons PLLC, Mesa By Matthew S. Long Counsel for Appellant STATE v. COPELAND Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Chief Judge Eckerstrom authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Vásquez and Judge Eppich concurred. E C K E R S T R O M, Chief Judge: ¶1 Daniel Copeland was convicted of possession of a dangerous drug, possession of drug paraphernalia, and resisting arrest. He was sentenced to enhanced, minimum, concurrent prison terms, the longest of which is eight years. ¶2 Copeland now appeals, claiming the evidence against him should have been suppressed because he was subject to an illegal search that was not justified as a search incident to arrest. However, the only suppression issue he raised in the trial court was an argument that his statements should have been suppressed as involuntary and for lack of Miranda1 warning. See State v. Lopez, 217 Ariz. 433, ¶ 4 (App. 2008) (“An objection on one ground does not preserve the issue on another ground.”). And, on appeal, he has not claimed that fundamental error occurred. We therefore deem the argument waived and affirm Copeland’s convictions and sentences. See State v. Moreno-Medrano, 218 Ariz. 349, ¶¶ 16-17 (App. 2008). 1Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 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.