NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, 

Appellee,

v.

STORM RUSSELL COLLINS,

Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 19-0201

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2013-002730-001

The Honorable Warren J. Granville, Judge (Retired)

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Michael O’Toole

Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix

By Jeffrey L. Force

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 9-15-2020
STATE v. COLLINS

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge D. Steven Williams and Judge David D. Weinzweig joined.

T H U M M A, Judge:

¶1 This is an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) 

and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969). Counsel for defendant Storm Russell 

Collins has advised the court that, after searching the entire record, he has 

found no arguable question of law and asks this court to conduct an Anders 

review of the record. Collins was given an opportunity to file a 

supplemental brief pro se and has not done so. A review of the entire record 

reveals no reversible error. Accordingly, Collins’ convictions and resulting 

sentences are affirmed.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Viewing the facts in a light most favorable to sustaining the 

verdict, State v. Rienhardt, 190 Ariz. 579, 588-89 (1997), in December 2012, 

Collins and Anthony Whitmore shot and killed D.M. during a robbery. In 

a series of text messages and phone calls leading up to the crimes, Collins, 

Whitmore and three others made plans to rob the victim while he was in 

the parking lot of an adult cabaret in Phoenix. A security camera captured 

the shooting as D.M. sat in his car. A police investigation found Collins’ 

fingerprints on D.M.’s car and footprints in the parking lot consistent with

the characteristics of Collins’ sneakers. Collins’ cell phone used the cell 

phone tower closest to the cabaret immediately before the shooting.

¶3 The State charged Collins with first-degree felony murder 

(count one), conspiracy to commit armed robbery (count two), armed 

robbery (count three) and discharge of a firearm at a structure (count four). 

A misconduct involving weapons charge was not tried and was later 

dismissed without prejudice. In January 2015, Collins entered into a plea 

agreement, although the court later granted the State’s request to withdraw

the plea after Collins said he would not comply with it. The case went to 

trial on counts one through four. During the 29-day trial, the State called 50

witnesses, including a codefendant who had entered into a testimonial 

agreement. This codefendant testified about her conversations with Collins 
STATE v. COLLINS

Decision of the Court

3

leading up to the crime, including targeting the victim, and testified Collins 

spoke with her about the shooting a few days later. 

¶4 The jury found Collins guilty as charged. The court sentenced 

Collins as a dangerous, non-repetitive offender to life in prison with the 

possibility of release after 25 years on count one, to run consecutive to the 

sentence on counts two, three and four. For counts two, three and four, the 

court sentenced him to presumptive concurrent prison terms, the longest 

being 10.5 years He received 474 days’ presentence incarceration credit.

¶5 Collins timely appealed. This court has jurisdiction over 

Collin’s appeal pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution 

and Ariz. Rev. Stat. (A.R.S.) §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031 and 13-4033(A)

(2020).

1

DISCUSSION

¶6 The court has reviewed and considered defense counsel’s 

brief and has searched the entire record for reversible error. See State v. 

Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537 ¶ 30 (App. 1999). Searching the record and briefing 

reveals no reversible error. From the record, all proceedings were 

conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. 

¶7 So far as the record reveals, Collins was represented by 

counsel at all stages of the proceedings and was present at all critical stages 

including the trial and verdict. See State v. Conner, 163 Ariz. 97, 104 (1990) 

(right to counsel at critical stages) (citing cases); State v. Bohn, 116 Ariz. 500, 

503 (1977) (right to be present at critical stages). The jury was properly 

comprised of twelve jurors, and the record shows no evidence of jury 

misconduct. See A.R.S. § 21-102; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 18.1(a). The court properly 

instructed the jury on the elements of the charged offenses, the State’s 

burden of proof and Collins’ presumption of innocence. At sentencing, 

Collins was given an opportunity to speak, and the court stated on the 

record the evidence and materials it considered and the factors it found in 

imposing the sentences. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 26.9, 26.10. The sentences 

imposed were within the statutory limits. See A.R.S. §§ 13-701 through -709 

(as applicable).

1 Absent material revisions after the relevant dates, statutes and rules cited 

refer to the current version unless otherwise indicated.
STATE v. COLLINS

Decision of the Court

4

CONCLUSION

¶8 This court has read and considered counsel’s brief and has 

searched the record for reversible error and has found none. Leon, 104 Ariz. 

at 300; Clark, 196 Ariz. at 537 ¶ 30. Accordingly, Collins’ convictions and 

resulting sentences are affirmed.

¶9 Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel is directed to 

inform Collins of the status of his appeal and of his future options. Defense 

counsel has no further obligations unless, upon review, counsel identifies 

an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by 

petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85 (1984). Collins

shall have 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, 

with a pro se motion for reconsideration or petition for review.