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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

MARVIN RAY DANIELS, JR., Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 23-0032

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2019-007244-001

The Honorable Joseph C. Kreamer, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Alice M. Jones

Counsel for Appellee

Mercer Law, PLC, Mesa

By Stephen N. Mercer

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 4-11-2024
STATE v. DANIELS

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge D. Steven Williams delivered the Court’s decision, in 

which Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Paul J. McMurdie joined.

W I L L I A M S, Judge:

¶1 Defendant Marvin Ray Daniels Jr. appeals his convictions and 

sentences for one count of first-degree murder and one count of aggravated 

assault with a deadly weapon. Daniels’ counsel filed a brief per Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), 

advising us there are no meritorious grounds for reversal. Daniels was 

given an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona but did 

not do so. After reviewing the entire record for reversible error, State v. 

Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999), we affirm Daniels’ convictions 

and sentences.

FACTUAL1 AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Daniels and Sam2 had known each other since high school 

and were both street gang members. Daniels was a member of a South 

Phoenix street gang known as the Lindo Park Crips. Sam previously had 

ties to that gang. 

¶3 Each year, a football game is played at Lindo Park on 

Thanksgiving morning (the “turkey bowl”). Community members attend 

and/or participate in the game, as do members of the Lindo Park Crips. In

2019, in the days leading up to the game, Daniels made several Facebook 

posts about the turkey bowl and his intentions to attend.

¶4 On Thanksgiving morning, Sam asked his mother to take him 

to the park for the game. She agreed. On the way, they stopped and picked 

up Sam’s friend Ben.

3 As soon as Sam’s mother dropped the two friends off 

1 “We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions 

with all reasonable inferences resolved against the defendant.” State v. 

Valencia, 186 Ariz. 493, 495 (App. 1996).

2 We use a pseudonym to protect the victim’s privacy. See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 

111(i).

3 A pseudonym.
STATE v. DANIELS

Decision of the Court

3

at the park, Daniels and others (who were allegedly also Lindo Park Crips) 

quickly approached. A fight ensued. Daniels hit Ben in the head with a 

handgun. Sam’s mother then watched as Daniels shot her son. Then, as Sam 

lay face down on the pavement, Daniels stood over him and shot him in the 

back of the head.

¶5 By the time officers responded, Daniels was gone. However, 

police found 11 shell casings from a .40 caliber handgun and 5 more from a 

9mm handgun. Daniels later admitted he owned a .40 caliber handgun 

before the shooting. 

¶6 That evening, Daniels slept at the apartment of his brother’s 

friend. When the friend told Daniels the following morning that undercover 

officers were outside, Daniels left the apartment and continued to evade 

police. He left Phoenix with two women (both of whom he was 

romantically involved with), and the three made plans to go to Chicago. On 

their way, however, police stopped their vehicle about 3 hours outside of

Phoenix. Officers found Daniels hiding in the trunk of the car. 

¶7 At trial, Daniels testified that he was not at the turkey bowl

on Thanksgiving morning but was instead selling drugs in Tempe.

However, he offered no other evidence to support his version of his 

whereabouts. 

¶8 The jury convicted Daniels of one count of first-degree 

murder and one count of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The 

trial court sentenced him as a dangerous, non-repetitive offender to natural 

life in prison for first-degree murder and 7.5 years for aggravated assault

(with credit for 735 days of presentence incarceration). 

¶9 Daniels timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under Article 

6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 

13-4031, and -4033(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶10 Our review reveals no fundamental error. See Leon, 104 Ariz. 

at 300 (“An exhaustive search of the record has failed to produce any 

prejudicial error.”). A person commits first-degree murder if “[i]ntending 

or knowing that the person’s conduct will cause death, the person causes 

the death of another person . . . with premeditation.” A.R.S. § 13-1105(A)(1). 

A person commits aggravated assault with a deadly weapon by

“[i]ntentionally, knowingly or recklessly causing any physical injury to 

another person” while using a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument. 
STATE v. DANIELS

Decision of the Court

4

A.R.S. § 13-1203(A)(1); A.R.S. § 13-1204(A)(2). The record contains sufficient 

evidence upon which the jury could determine beyond a reasonable doubt

that Daniels was guilty of those offenses. 

¶11 Further, all the proceedings were conducted in compliance 

with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. So far as the record reveals, 

Daniels was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings and was 

present at all critical stages including the entire trial, the rendering of the 

verdict, and sentencing. See State v. Conner, 163 Ariz. 97, 104 (1990) (right to 

counsel at critical stages) (citations omitted); 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 juror

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

properly instructed the jury on the elements of the charged offenses, the 

State’s burden of proof, and Daniels’ presumption of innocence. At 

sentencing, Daniels was given an opportunity to speak, and the court stated 

on the record the evidence and materials it considered, including the factors 

it found, in imposing the sentences. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 26.9, 26.10.

Additionally, the sentences imposed were within the statutory limits. See 

A.R.S. §§ 13-701 through -718 (as applicable).

CONCLUSION

¶12 We affirm Daniels’ convictions and sentences. Defense 

counsel’s obligations pertaining to Daniels’ representation in this appeal 

have ended. Counsel need do no more than inform Daniels of the outcome 

of this appeal and his future options, unless, upon review, counsel finds an 

issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition 

for review. State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584–85 (1984).

¶13 Daniels has thirty days from the date of this decision to 

proceed, if he wishes, with an in propria persona petition for review to the 

Arizona Supreme Court. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.21. Upon this Court’s own 

motion, we also grant Daniels thirty days from the date of this decision to 

file an in propria persona motion for reconsideration.