State v. Daniels, 1 CA-CR 16-0486

Daniels recruited and managed three prostitutes (K.S., A.C. — a minor — and S.F.), controlled advertising, rules for dates, transportation, and collected proceeds.
In January 2015 Daniels transported the women from California to Phoenix for Super Bowl week; he coordinated online ads and took part in arranging dates; he had sexual intercourse with minor A.C. on one occasion.
An undercover detective responded to an online ad for A.C.; police arrested Daniels and the victims at a Phoenix hotel after the detective and task force entered the room.
Before trial Daniels successfully moved to admit evidence of the victims’ prior prostitution activities in California and then cross-examined them about that history as part of his theory that K.S., not he, controlled the victims.
A jury convicted Daniels of multiple counts including child prostitution, transporting for prostitution, receiving earnings, pandering (and attempts), and sexual conduct with a minor; Daniels appealed.
On appeal Daniels challenged admission of prior-acts evidence (arguing fundamental error) and the superior court’s sentencing entries for two attempted counts (class level), which the Court corrected.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admission of victims’ prior prostitution activities and related other-acts evidence	State argued evidence was admissible and probative of the charged offenses and the victims’ role	Daniels argued admission was erroneous and prejudicial; he contended it warranted reversal under fundamental-error review	No fundamental error. Daniels invited and sought the admission pretrial and used the testimony in cross-examination as part of his defense, so appellate relief denied
Classification of attempted offenses for sentencing	State relied on the amended attempt charges and applicable statutes	Daniels noted the sentencing minute entry misclassified attempted Class 5 felonies but acknowledged the attempt amendments	Court corrected the sentencing entry: attempted Class 5 felonies are Class 6 felonies; sentences affirmed as corrected

State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 115 P.3d 601 (2005) (standard and requirements for fundamental-error review)
State v. Moody, 208 Ariz. 424, 94 P.3d 1119 (2004) (a defendant who invites error cannot later claim it on appeal)
State v. Fulminante, 161 Ariz. 237, 778 P.2d 602 (1989) (no error where defense strategically stipulated or invited admission of evidence)
State v. Vandever, 211 Ariz. 206, 119 P.3d 473 (App. 2005) (appellate courts may correct inadvertent sentencing entry errors)
State v. Boozer, 221 Ariz. 601, 212 P.3d 939 (App. 2009) (viewing facts in the light most favorable to sustaining convictions)