Court of Appeals of Arizona, First Division, Department D
Not for Publication – Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause Nos. CR2011-105725-001, CR2008-164770-001 The Honorable William L. Brotherton, Judge.
Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General Joseph T. Maziarz, Acting Chief Counsel, Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee.
Maricopa County Public Defender's Office Cory Engle, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant.
JOHN C. GEMMILL, Presiding Judge.
¶1 Daisy Daniels appeals from her conviction for Aggravated Assault, a class 3 dangerous felony, the revocation of her probation in CR2008-164770-001, and the resulting sentences. Daniels' counsel filed briefs in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), stating that he has searched the record and found no arguable question of law and requesting that this court examine the record for reversible error. Daniels has also filed a pro se supplemental brief raising several issues. See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d 89, 96 (App. 1999). For the following reasons, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 "We view the facts and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions." State v. Powers, 200 Ariz. 123, 124, ¶ 2, 23 P.3d 668, 669 (App. 2001).
¶3 On February 1, 2011, S. Rodriguez was waiting at a bus stop with her nearly two-year-old son when Daniels approached the bench and gestured to her to move over. Rodriguez moved over with her son and Daniels sat next to them on the bench. Rodriguez's son was crying when Daniels shouted at her that she better stop the child from "hollering" near her. Rodriguez picked the child up and moved him away from Daniels, but told Daniels to not speak to her child that way. Daniels then stood up and retrieved from her bag a pocket knife, which she opened and swung at Rodriguez. Daniels yelled at Rodriguez, "Don't f with me. I will fing kill you both." Rodriguez then moved away and called police while Daniels continued to shout at her. Rodriguez testified at trial that she was afraid Daniels was going to injure her or her son. When police arrived, Daniels was belligerent with the officers. The police searched Daniels and found the knife in her pocket.
¶4 The State initially charged Daniels by direct complaint with Disorderly Conduct, a class 6 dangerous felony. The State later obtained a supervening indictment, changing the charge to Aggravated Assault, a class 3 dangerous felony pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") section 13-1204(A)(2) (Supp. 2012). Daniels pleaded not guilty. The State alleged Daniels had prior felony convictions for purposes of sentencing enhancement. The State also alleged Daniels had committed the present offense while on probation.
¶5 Prior to trial, Daniels moved the court to allow her to represent herself. At a hearing on the motion, the court determined that Daniels knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived her right to counsel. However, the State expressed concerns over Daniels' competency and the court ordered that a Rule 11 evaluation be conducted. After Daniels was declared competent, the court again discussed the waiver of counsel with Daniels and again determined that she knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived her right to counsel. Daniels' attorney was then appointed to serve as advisory counsel. However, midway through the trial, Daniels asked that her advisory counsel take over once again as her legal representative.
¶6 Following a six-day trial, a jury found Daniels guilty of Aggravated Assault, a class 3 dangerous felony. On October 14, 2011, the court held a hearing to determine Daniels' prior felony convictions and probation status. The State offered court minute entries and a Department of Corrections "pen pack" to prove Daniels' prior convictions and presented expert testimony linking the fingerprints associated with three of the four convictions to current fingerprints taken from Daniels. The minute entry associated with the oldest conviction did not contain a fingerprint. Daniels' probation officer also testified that Daniels was on probation at the time of the current offense. Based on this evidence and testimony, the court found the defendant had four prior felony convictions committed in 1979, 1990, 1992, and 2008. The court also found the Defendant was on probation for the 2008 conviction at the time of the current offense.
¶7 On November 1, 2011, the court sentenced Daniels as a category two repetitive offender in the current case to the presumptive term of 11.25 years imprisonment in the Arizona Department of Corrections, with presentence incarceration credit of 273 days. In the probation matter, the court found that Daniels was in violation of her probation and sentenced her to a super-mitigated term of 2 years imprisonment, to be served consecutively to her sentence in the current case, with presentence incarceration credit of 452 days.
¶8 Daniels filed a timely notice of appeal in both matters and the cases have been consolidated in this decision. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 13-1204 (Supp. ...