Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2014-0104
09-11-2014
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. DANIEL ANDREW SNIDER, Appellant.
COUNSEL Lori J. Lefferts, Pima County Public Defender By Abigail Jensen, Assistant Public Defender, Tucson Counsel for Appellant
THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24.
Appeal from the superior Court in Pima County
No. CR20110022002
The Honorable Jane L. Eikleberry, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL Lori J. Lefferts, Pima County Public Defender
By Abigail Jensen, Assistant Public Defender, Tucson
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Vásquez authored the decision of the Court, in which Judge Howard and Judge Brammer concurred. VÁSQUEZ, Judge: ¶1 Following a jury trial, appellant Daniel Snider was convicted of nine counts of first-degree burglary, ten counts of armed robbery, and one count each of aggravated assault and attempted armed robbery. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent prison terms, the longest of which were terms of life without the possibility of release for twenty-five years on the burglary and armed robbery counts. This court affirmed his convictions on appeal, but remanded the matter to the trial court for resentencing on the burglary and armed robbery counts due to error in relation to the life sentences imposed. State v. Snider, 233 Ariz. 243, ¶ 16, 311 P.3d 656, 661 (App. 2013). On remand, the trial court sentenced him to a 7.5-year term of imprisonment on each of the burglary counts and a 10.5-year term on each of the armed robbery counts. The court ordered all terms to be served concurrently.
The Hon. J. William Brammer, Jr., a retired judge of this court, is called back to active duty to serve on this case pursuant to orders of this court and the supreme court.
¶2 Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999), stating she has reviewed the record and has "been unable to find any arguably meritorious issue to raise on appeal." Counsel has asked us to search the record for fundamental error. Snider has not filed a supplemental brief.
¶3 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental, reversible error and have found none. The sentences imposed are within the statutory limit and were properly imposed. See A.R.S. §§ 13-704(F); 13-1508(A); 13-1904. We therefore affirm Snider's sentences.