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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

LEONARDO DANIEL LARIS LARIS, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 20-0275

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2018-131805-002

The Honorable Warren J. Granville, Judge (Retired)

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Linley Wilson

Counsel for Appellee

KBUnited, LLC, Phoenix

By Kerrie M. Nelson

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 4-20-2021
STATE v. LARIS LARIS

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Jennifer B. Campbell and Chief Judge Peter B. Swann

joined.

W I N T H R O P, Judge:

¶1 Leonardo Daniel Laris Laris (“Appellant”) appeals his 

convictions and sentences for manslaughter and theft of means of

transportation. Appellant’s counsel has filed a brief in accordance with 

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

(1969), stating counsel has searched the record on appeal and found no 

arguable question of law. Appellant’s counsel therefore requests that we 

review the record for fundamental error. See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 

537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999) (stating that this court reviews the entire record for 

reversible error). This court allowed Appellant to file a supplemental brief 

in propria persona, but he has not done so.

¶2 We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to the Arizona 

Constitution, Article 6, Section 9, and Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) 

sections 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and 13-4033(A). Finding no reversible 

error, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY1

¶3 A grand jury issued an indictment charging Appellant with 

second degree murder, a class 1 felony (Count IV), and theft of means of 

transportation, a class 3 felony (Count V). See A.R.S. §§ 13-1104, -1814. In 

the same indictment, the State charged Appellant’s brother, Oliver, with 

second degree murder (Count I), theft of means of transportation (Count 

II), and attempted trafficking in stolen property in the second degree

(Count III). See A.R.S. §§ 13-1004, -1814, -2307, and -1001. The State alleged 

the victim’s murder was a dangerous offense involving the use of a deadly 

1 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict 

and resolve all reasonable inferences against Appellant. See State v. Kiper, 

181 Ariz. 62, 64 (App. 1994).
STATE v. LARIS LARIS

Decision of the Court

3

weapon or dangerous instrument. The State also alleged the existence of 

three statutory and other aggravating circumstances.

¶4 Before trial, Appellant moved to sever his case from Oliver’s 

for trial. The State opposed the motion, arguing the two brothers’ defenses 

were not antagonistic and the charges were so closely connected that 

essentially the same evidence would be used against both defendants for 

Counts I, II, IV, and V. After learning Oliver planned to testify, Appellant 

moved to withdraw his severance motion, and the trial court granted the 

motion to withdraw, deeming the motion to sever moot.2

¶5 At trial, the State presented the following evidence: On 

Sunday, June 10, 2018, Oliver called the victim at 11:04 a.m. from a ZTE flip 

phone to arrange a test drive of a 2012 black Ford F-150 pickup the victim 

had listed for sale. After arranging the time, Oliver and Appellant traveled 

to the victim’s residence in a Dodge Journey SUV belonging to Oliver’s 

wife. Oliver parked the Dodge Journey down the block from the residence 

and again called the victim from the ZTE flip phone at 11:50 a.m.

¶6 At approximately 11:55 a.m., the three men went for a test 

drive in the victim’s pickup. Surveillance video from a nearby camera 

showed Appellant getting in the driver’s seat, the victim getting in the front 

passenger seat, and Oliver getting in the rear passenger seat. Cell phone 

data showed that during the test drive, the men traveled north on I-17, and 

then south on I-17 past the exit that would have led to the victim’s 

residence. At some point during the test drive, the victim was severely 

beaten and strangled.

¶7 A witness was working on the back patio of his Phoenix home 

when he saw a black pickup skid to an abrupt stop in the alley behind his 

fence. He observed the passenger’s door was opened and a Hispanic male, 

who appeared to be in distress or pain, was in the passenger’s seat. The 

witness could see blood all over the passenger, including on his arm and 

head. Someone was holding the passenger, apparently to prevent him from 

getting out of the pickup. The driver hurriedly exited and ran around the 

pickup, closed the passenger door, and returned to the driver’s seat. The 

pickup then “peeled its tires out” and drove away.

2 Although given the opportunity to do so during trial, Appellant did 

not renew his request for severance. Later, when the case was submitted to 

the jury for deliberation, the trial court ruled sua sponte that no antagonistic 

defenses or evidence had been presented that would require severance.
STATE v. LARIS LARIS

Decision of the Court

4

¶8 In the alley, the witness found a hat and a folded piece of 

paper that appeared to have fallen out of the pickup. He collected both and 

called 911 at 12:47 p.m. to report what appeared to be a kidnapping or 

“carjacking.” The piece of paper had blood on it—which was later matched 

to the victim’s DNA—and was a vehicle title for the 2012 black Ford F-150 

pickup. Fingerprints from the victim, Oliver, and Appellant were later 

identified on the title. The hat belonged to Oliver. The hat had blood on it, 

and a stain on the hat had DNA from the victim. Cell phone data showed 

both the victim’s and Appellant’s phones were near the witness’ residence 

at the time the pickup was observed in the alley.

¶9 Surveillance video showed the black Ford F-150 pickup 

returned to the victim’s residence at 1:10 p.m. The victim did not get out of 

the pickup. Instead, Appellant exited the pickup, got into the Dodge 

Journey, and followed as both vehicles left the area together.

¶10 Beginning at approximately 1:00 p.m., the victim’s wife tried 

several times to call him, but the calls went to voicemail. After speaking 

with the victim’s wife, the victim’s brother also tried calling him several 

times, but did not receive an answer. The last GPS activity obtained from 

the victim’s cell phone occurred sometime between 1:30 and 2:00 p.m. Later 

that afternoon, the victim’s family contacted the police to report the victim 

missing. The victim’s family never saw or spoke to the victim again after 

he went on the test drive.

¶11 The victim’s family obtained records for the victim’s cell 

phone, including the last phone number to call him, and they provided the 

records to the police. Data associated with that last phone number revealed 

the phone was often at or near Oliver’s residence. The victim’s family also 

found a Facebook advertisement listing the victim’s black Ford F-150 

pickup for sale. The background images in the advertisement showed 

Oliver’s house.

¶12 Police officers began conducting surveillance on Oliver’s 

residence, and on June 26, 2018, a detective observed both the Dodge 

Journey and a black Ford F-150 pickup driving up to the house. The Dodge 

Journey pulled into the driveway, but the pickup suddenly drove away, 

and the detective followed the pickup in an unmarked car. The pickup then 

sped up, the driver took evasive actions, and eventually eluded the 

detective. Meanwhile, the Dodge Journey pulled out of the driveway and 

drove away, but officers stopped the vehicle soon afterward. Oliver and 

two other men were in the Dodge Journey. A key to the victim’s black Ford 

F-150 pickup was found in the Dodge Journey, as was Oliver’s ZTE flip 
STATE v. LARIS LARIS

Decision of the Court

5

phone. Shortly afterward, the black Ford F-150 pickup was found 

abandoned two to three miles away and impounded.

¶13 By the time police recovered the victim’s pickup, its 

appearance had been altered from the original ad placed by the victim. The 

wheel rims and lug nuts had been repainted, “4x4” stickers had been 

removed, and a different sticker had been added. Both the front 

passenger’s seat and the driver’s seat had been stripped of their upholstery 

and covered with denim work shirts. Additionally, the passenger’s side 

seat belt and the vehicle’s carpeting had been taken out.

¶14 Police officers found numerous small blood spots and stains 

throughout the pickup, with most found near the front passenger seat. The 

front passenger seat area had remnants of extensive blood pooling.

¶15 On July 12, 2019, after a monsoon rainstorm, the victim’s 

naked body was discovered in a retention basin in south Phoenix. The 

victim’s head had received at least twenty-three blows causing defects in 

the skull consistent with deadly blunt force trauma caused by an 

instrument such as a tire iron. One rib was fractured. Also, the victim had 

fractures on both ends of the hyoid (neck) bone and in the thyroid cartilage 

(Adam’s apple), and his cricoid cartilage was crushed, all injuries consistent 

with strangulation.

¶16 At trial, Oliver testified extensively, as did Appellant. Oliver

admitted he and Appellant were the two men shown in the surveillance 

video near the victim’s residence and that he was the owner of the ZTE flip 

phone. He also admitted he hit the victim in the head with the tire jack and 

killed the victim by striking him repeatedly; however, Oliver asserted he 

acted in self-defense.

¶17 Oliver testified the victim was still alive when he dropped 

Appellant off to get the Dodge Journey, and he planned to take the victim 

to the hospital, but the victim died en route. Oliver then drove to the 

retention basin in south Phoenix, and claimed he alone dragged the victim’s 

body from the pickup and into a culvert, even though the grate covering 

the culvert was extremely heavy, the body was awkward to move, and a 

second person would likely have been necessary to accomplish the task. 

After hiding the body, Oliver drove to a nearby self-serve car wash, wiped 

down and washed most of the blood from the pickup, and dumped the 

rags, the tire jack, and other items in a dumpster. He was at the car wash 

“a long time,” and sometime early Monday morning, he drove the victim’s 
STATE v. LARIS LARIS

Decision of the Court

6

pickup home, hid his clothes in the backyard, snuck in through the back 

door, and showered.

¶18 Oliver subsequently removed the carpet, front seat covers, 

and front passenger’s seat belt from the pickup. Oliver admitted he was 

trying to sell the pickup to the two men he was with when arrested and that 

he tried to sell the pickup despite knowing it did not belong to him. On 

cross-examination, he also admitted lying throughout police interviews, to 

Appellant’s investigator, and during his testimony to the jury.

¶19 Appellant testified that at approximately 11:00 a.m. on June 

10, 2018, Oliver picked him up in the Dodge Journey and drove to the 

victim’s residence. According to Appellant, during the test drive, he 

“heard” the victim hit Oliver, who then hit the victim several times. He did 

not see any of the blows allegedly struck by the victim or those struck by 

Oliver, however, because he was focused only on driving. Thus, Appellant

claimed he only heard “thumps” and sounds that mimicked a “hard object 

hitting a hard object.”

¶20 Appellant testified that, at some point, he pulled the pickup 

over, saw blood on the victim’s arms and Oliver’s face and hands, and 

yelled at Oliver that he wanted to go home. He switched seats with Oliver, 

who drove the pickup into an alley, where the passenger side door swung 

open. Appellant denied holding the victim to keep him from escaping, 

injuring the victim’s neck, or participating in any physical exchange.

¶21 Oliver dropped Appellant off where the Dodge Journey was 

parked so Appellant could help Oliver by driving the Dodge Journey home. 

According to Appellant, the victim appeared to still be alive, and although 

he did not call the police, Appellant claimed he urged Oliver to do so and 

to take the victim to the hospital. Appellant further claimed that, at 

approximately 6:00 or 7:00 p.m. that evening, he drove to Oliver’s residence 

to confirm that Oliver had taken the victim to the hospital, and Oliver

assured Appellant he had done so. Appellant denied helping Oliver dump 

the victim’s body and claimed he was not present when the victim died. On 

cross-examination, Appellant acknowledged numerous inconsistencies in 

his testimony, that portions of his story changed during his testimony, and 

that he had trouble remembering what he had previously said.

¶22 At the conclusion of the sixteen-day trial, which included 

approximately three days of deliberations, the jury convicted Appellant of 

the lesser-included offense of manslaughter, a class two dangerous felony,

and the charged count of theft of means of transportation, and convicted 
STATE v. LARIS LARIS

Decision of the Court

7

Oliver as charged. The trial court found inherent in the verdicts that the 

allegations of dangerousness and the presence of an accomplice had been 

proven.

¶23 Both Oliver and Appellant waived an additional jury trial as 

to the presence of additional aggravating circumstances. At sentencing, the 

court found the State had proven the additional aggravating factor of 

emotional harm to the victim’s family.

¶24 As to Appellant, the court imposed concurrent, presumptive 

terms of 10.5 years’ imprisonment for Count IV and 3.5 years’ 

imprisonment for Count V. The court credited Appellant for 670 days of 

presentence incarceration. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.

ANALYSIS

¶25 We have reviewed the record for reversible error and find 

none. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300; Clark, 196 Ariz. at 537, ¶ 30. The evidence 

presented at trial was substantial and supports Appellant’s convictions and 

sentences. Appellant was represented by counsel at all stages of the 

proceedings and was given the opportunity to speak at sentencing. The 

proceedings were conducted in compliance with his constitutional and 

statutory rights and the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.

¶26 After filing of this decision, defense counsel’s obligations 

pertaining to Appellant’s representation in this appeal have ended. 

Counsel need do no more than inform Appellant of the status of the appeal 

and of his future options, unless counsel’s review reveals an issue 

appropriate for petition for review to the Arizona Supreme Court. See State 

v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85 (1984). Appellant has thirty days from the 

date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro per motion for 

reconsideration or petition for review.
STATE v. LARIS LARIS

Decision of the Court

8

CONCLUSION

¶27 Appellant’s convictions and sentences are affirmed.