Court Opinion

ID: 9907011
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-05 18:02:37.875805+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:55:32.212641
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

                    MATHEW CARL DAVEE, Appellant.

                             No. 1 CA-CR 23-0050
                              FILED 12-05-2023

           Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County
                        No. P1300CR201500754
              The Honorable John David Napper, Judge

                                  AFFIRMED

                                   COUNSEL

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

Zickerman Law Office, Flagstaff
By Adam Zickerman
Counsel for Appellant
                             STATE v. DAVEE
                            Decision of the Court

                       MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge D. Steven Williams and Judge Paul J. McMurdie 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 Mathew Davee
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. Davee was given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief
pro se but has not done so. This court has reviewed the record and has
found no reversible error. Thus, Davee’s conviction and resulting sentence
are affirmed.

                 FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2             A jury found Davee guilty of aggravated assault, a Class 3
felony, for stabbing a man during a physical altercation. The jury also found
the State had proven the alleged aggravators of emotional and financial
harm to the victim.

¶3            At a January 2023 sentencing, the court considered Davee’s
mental health history as a mitigating factor. It found that the mitigating
factor outweighed the aggravating factors and sentenced Davee to a five-
year prison term, a less than presumptive term; properly awarding him 995
days’ of presentence incarceration credit and imposed a $1,000 fine. This
court has jurisdiction over Davee’s timely appeal under A.R.S. §§ 12-
120.21(A)(1), 13-4031 and -4033(A)(1).

                               DISCUSSION

¶4            The record shows that Davee was represented by counsel at
all stages of the proceedings and that counsel was present at all critical
stages. The record contains substantial evidence supporting the verdict. The
prison sentence imposed was within statutory limits, and the award of
presentence incarceration credit was correct. And in all other respects, from
the record presented, all proceedings were conducted in compliance with
the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.

                                       2
                             STATE v. DAVEE
                            Decision of the Court

                               CONCLUSION

¶5            This court has read and considered counsel’s brief and has
searched the record provided for reversible error and has found none. Leon,
104 Ariz. at 300; State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537 ¶ 30 (App. 1999).
Accordingly, Davee’s conviction and resulting sentence is affirmed.

¶6             Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel is directed to
inform Davee of the status of the 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). Davee
has 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a
pro se motion for reconsideration or petition for review.

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

                                         3