Court Opinion

ID: 9366357
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-26 17:02:31.372634+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:51.596875
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

                       STEVEN PAUL DANIELS, SR.,
                               Appellant.

                             No. 1 CA-CR 21-0532
                               FILED 1-26-2023

           Appeal from the Superior Court in Coconino County
                        No. S0300CR201800841
                 The Honorable Ted Stuart Reed, Judge

                                  AFFIRMED

                                   COUNSEL

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

Janelle A. McEachern Attorney at Law, Chandler
By Janelle A. McEachern
Counsel for Appellant
                            STATE v. DANIELS
                            Decision of the Court

                       MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court,
in which Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge D. Steven Williams joined.

W E I N Z W E I G, Judge:

¶1             Steve Paul Daniels, Sr. appeals his conviction and sentence for
child molestation. We received a brief from Daniels’ counsel in accordance
with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297
(1969), certifying that she diligently searched the record and found no
arguable, non-frivolous question of law. Daniels had the opportunity to file
a supplemental brief but did not. Counsel asks this Court to search the
record for fundamental error. After reviewing the record, we affirm
Daniels’ conviction and sentence.

             FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2            At an overnight sleepover in 2015, Daniels followed the
victim into the bathroom and touched her vagina over her pajamas. The
victim was seven or eight years old. Daniels was 50 years old. She told
Daniels to stop but he continued. The victim reported the sexual touching
to her grandmother that night, and again reported the incident to her foster
mother in January 2017. Her foster mother reported Daniels to DCS, and
an investigation and forensic interview followed. Daniels denied the claim.

¶3             Daniels was charged with one count of molestation of a child,
a class 2 felony, and the jury found him guilty. The superior court found
two aggravating factors, including that Daniels caused extreme emotional
harm to the victim, and that Daniels had been convicted of one predicate
felony within 10 years of the offense. In mitigation, the court found that
Daniels was employed before being taken into custody and had
demonstrated some family and community support. The court sentenced
Daniels to the presumptive term of 17 years imprisonment. He received
307 days of presentence incarceration credit.

¶4              Daniels timely appealed. We have jurisdiction. See Ariz.
Const., art. 6, § 9; A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031 and -4033(A)(1).

                                       2
                           STATE v. DANIELS
                           Decision of the Court

                               DISCUSSION

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

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

                              CONCLUSION

¶7            We affirm Daniels’ conviction and sentence. Defense counsel
must inform Daniels of the outcome of this appeal and his future options.
Defense counsel’s representation of Daniels will then come to an end,
unless counsel finds an appropriate basis to petition the Arizona Supreme
Court for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85 (1984). On the
court’s own motion, Daniels has 30 days from the date of this decision to
proceed, if he wishes, with a pro se motion for reconsideration or petition
for review.

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

                                        3