STATE OF ARIZONA v. JAMES DANIEL CANDELARIA

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. JAMES DANIEL CANDELARIA, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2021-0052 Filed January 27, 2022 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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. 31.19(e). Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County No. CR20185458001 The Honorable James E. Marner, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Joel Feinman, Pima County Public Defender By David J. Euchner, Assistant Public Defender, Tucson Counsel for Appellant STATE v. CANDELARIA Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Espinosa authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Eckerstrom and Chief Judge Vásquez concurred. E S P I N O S A, Judge: ¶1 After a jury trial, James Candelaria was convicted of the lesser-included offense of second-degree murder and sentenced to a sixteen-year prison term. Counsel have filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530 (App. 1999), stating they have reviewed the entire record but found no “arguably meritorious issue to raise on appeal” and asking this court to review the record for error. Candelaria has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶2 Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury’s verdict, see State v. Delgado, 232 Ariz. 182, ¶ 2 (App. 2013), the evidence is sufficient here, see A.R.S. § 13-1104(A). In November 2018, Candelaria fatally shot the victim during a claimed “citizen’s arrest” following an incident in which the victim allegedly placed a lit cigarette into the nozzle of a gas pump at a convenience store where Candelaria had stopped to purchase gas. At trial, Candelaria denied pursuing the victim and testified that although he had not intended to shoot or harm the unarmed victim over an hour following the incident at the pump, he had pointed his gun at the victim and intentionally pulled the trigger, fatally shooting him outside a restaurant near the convenience store.1 Candelaria’s sentence is within the statutory range. See A.R.S. § 13-710(A). ¶3 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental, prejudicial error and have found none. Accordingly, Candelaria’s conviction and sentence are affirmed. 1Candelaria also testified that he had lied to the police and medical personnel about what occurred. After he shot the victim, he cut his own chest and face with a box cutter, which he deposited near the victim’s body along with his gun in an attempt to support his false self-defense story. 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.