State of Arizona v. Daniel Andrew Snider
233 Ariz. 243
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Between Oct–Dec 2010, nine banks in Pima County were robbed in a similar fashion: masked/hooded man displayed a handgun, demanded money in a bag, and fled; Snider was arrested after the Dec 23 robbery and admitted to most robberies.
- Snider was indicted on 24 counts: multiple counts of armed robbery, attempted armed robbery, aggravated assault, and first‑degree burglary; most counts were charged as dangerous offenses.
- A jury convicted Snider of 21 counts, including nine burglaries, ten armed robberies, one aggravated assault, and one attempted armed robbery.
- Sentencing: the trial court imposed concurrent terms including several life terms pursuant to A.R.S. § 13‑706(A) (life after conviction of three or more serious offenses) and entered a Criminal Restitution Order (CRO).
- On appeal Snider challenged (1) sufficiency of the evidence for two armed robbery convictions (counts 20 and 22) and (2) legality of the life sentences under § 13‑706(A); the court also reviewed the CRO sua sponte.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Snider) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for armed robbery counts 20 & 22 | Evidence showed Snider was armed and demanded money; victims were intimidated — supports convictions | Victims did not testify the robber used or threatened to use a weapon, so armed robbery not proved | Affirmed: substantial evidence defendant was armed and threatened/used force; convictions stand |
| Applicability of § 13‑706(A) life sentences | Life enhancement proper because multiple serious offenses were proved at trial | § 13‑706(A) requires prior convictions; here offenses were consolidated and defendant had no prior convictions | Vacated life sentences: § 13‑706(A) inapplicable to offenses consolidated for trial without prior convictions; remand for sentencing under § 13‑704(F) |
| Criminal Restitution Order (CRO) timing/terms | CRO appropriate and interest suspended while defendant in DOC | CRO improperly imposed before sentence/probation expired and cannot lawfully delay interest accrual | Vacated CRO as an illegal sentence; remand for proper restitution procedure |
| Waiver of additional challenges (dangerousness, reduction to theft) | State contends issues were not preserved | Snider raised some arguments late or in reply | Court deems some arguments waived but addresses core sufficiency and sentencing errors; non‑preserved sentencing errors reviewed as fundamental error |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Garza Rodriguez, 164 Ariz. 107 (weapon need not be seen by victim to satisfy armed robbery statute)
- State v. Stevens, 184 Ariz. 411 (fear‑invoking behavior can support a robbery conviction absent an overt verbal threat)
- State v. Thompson, 200 Ariz. 439 (if offenses are consolidated, a conviction on a "prior" offense cannot precede a subsequent conviction for § 13‑706 purposes)
- State v. Fernandez, 216 Ariz. 545 (application of § 13‑706 enhancement requires prior convictions; improper enhancement is fundamental error)
- State v. Lopez, 231 Ariz. 561 (imposition of a CRO before sentence/probation expires is an illegal sentence)
- State v. West, 226 Ariz. 559 (de novo review standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
- State v. Haight‑Gyuro, 218 Ariz. 356 (reviewing evidence in the light most favorable to sustain convictions)