Court Opinion

ID: 9910001
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-14 18:02:25.423842+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:50:25.664351
License: Public Domain

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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

                   DARIN MICHAEL MOORE, Appellant.

                             No. 1 CA-CR 22-0563
                               FILED 12-14-2023

           Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                        No. CR2018-139321-001
                 The Honorable Michael C. Blair, Judge

                                  AFFIRMED

                                   COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Alice Jones
Counsel for Appellee

The Susser Law Firm PLLC, Chandler
By Adam M. Susser
Counsel for Appellant
                             STATE v. MOORE
                            Decision of the Court

                        MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Michael S. Catlett delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge David D. Weinzweig and Judge Maria Elena Cruz joined.

C A T L E T T, Judge:

¶1            Darin Michael Moore (“Moore”) appeals his convictions and
resulting sentence for attempted second-degree murder, aggravated
assault, and unlawfully discharging a firearm within city limits. Counsel
for Moore filed a brief per Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and State
v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), certifying that, after a diligent search of the
record, counsel found no arguable question of law that was not frivolous.
Moore was permitted to file a supplemental brief but did not do so.
Counsel asks this Court to search the record for arguable issues. See Penson
v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537 ¶30 (App. 1999).
After reviewing the record, we affirm the convictions and sentence.

             FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2            On August 9, 2018, Moore was arrested after he shot the
victim in Moore’s driveway. The victim survived but was partially
paralyzed. The State charged Moore with attempted second-degree
murder, a class 2 felony, aggravated assault, a class 3 felony, and unlawful
discharge of a firearm, a class 6 felony.

¶3             The State did not allege Moore had any prior convictions but
did allege four aggravating circumstances—that the offenses involved the
infliction of serious physical injury, the use of a deadly weapon, the crimes
caused physical, emotional, or financial harm to the victim, and the crimes
were dangerous because they involved the use of a deadly weapon. After
a six-day trial, a jury returned a guilty verdict, and concluded the State
proved all four aggravating circumstances.

¶4            The court sentenced Moore to 8 years in prison for attempted
second-degree murder, 7.5 years in prison for aggravated assault, and 2.25
years in prison for unlawful discharge of a firearm. The court ordered the
sentences to run concurrently and gave Moore credit for 47 days he had
spent in custody. Due to the nature of the victim’s injuries, the court
retained jurisdiction over restitution, allowing it to remain open for 5 years.

                                       2
                            STATE v. MOORE
                           Decision of the Court

Moore appealed. We have jurisdiction. See A.R.S. §§ 13-4031 and 13-
4033(A)(1).

                               DISCUSSION

¶5           We have read and considered counsel’s brief, and we have
reviewed the record for any arguable issues. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300. We
find none.

¶6             Moore was present and represented by counsel at all critical
stages of the proceedings. The record reflects the superior court afforded
Moore his constitutional and statutory rights and conducted the
proceedings following the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. The court
held appropriate pretrial hearings, and the evidence presented at trial was
sufficient to support the jury’s verdict. The sentence imposed falls within
the range prescribed by law, with proper credit given for presentence
incarceration.

                              CONCLUSION

¶7             Moore’s conviction and sentence are affirmed. Defense
counsel’s obligations pertaining to Moore’s representation in this appeal
will end after informing Moore of the outcome of this appeal and his future
options, unless counsel’s review reveals an issue appropriate for a petition
for review to the Arizona Supreme Court. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz.
582, 584–85 (1984).

                          AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
                          FILED: AA

                                        3