State v. Counterman
| Decision Date | 27 April 1966 |
| Docket Number | CA-CR |
| Citation | 413 P.2d 575,3 Ariz.App. 244 |
| Parties | STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Danny W. COUNTERMAN aka Daniel W. Counterman, Appellant. 178. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
Darrell F. Smith, Atty. Gen., by Gary K. Nelson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Vernon B. Croaff, Public Defender, by Grant Laney, Deputy Public Defender, for appellant.
This is a review for fundamental error pursuant to 13--1715 A.R.S.
Complaint was filed on 19 April, 1965, charging the defendant with a felony, to wit, assault with a deadly weapon. An attorney was appointed to represent him, 30 April, 1965, and the defendant was represented by counsel both at the preliminary hearing, held 20 May, 1965, and at the trial before a jury commencing 22 September, 1965.
Upon motion duly made by defense counsel, two psychiatrists were appointed to examine defendant pursuant to Rule 250, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S., and the trial court found on 17 September, 1965, that the defendant was able to understand the proceedings and to assist in his defense and ordered the matter to proceed to trial. The defendant entered a plea of not guilty, and not guilty by reason of insanity, and the jury returned a verdict of guilty. The court adjudged the defendant guilty, and sentenced him to not less than five nor more than eight years in the Arizona State Penitentiary.
The defendant filed notice of appeal in propria persona and the Maricopa County Public Defender's Office was appointed to represent defendant on appeal. We were informed by the Public Defender's Office that they had reviewed the record and were unable to find any reversible error. We therefore must search the record for fundamental error pursuant to 13--1715 A.R.S. State v. Garcia, 1 Ariz.App. 134, 400 P.2d 341 (1965), State v. Tannahill, 1 Ariz.App. 281, 402 P.2d 29 (1965).
Defendant, in his petition to this Court, attacks the sufficiency of the evidence and contends that the sentence was excessive.
We have read the transcript of record and we believe that the evidence was more than sufficient from which a jury might find the defendant guilty of the crime as charged.
The sentence being within the limits of the penalty (one to ten years) as provided by the statute (13--249 A.R.S.), we will not review the discretion of the trial court on appeal. State v. Andress, 2 Ariz.App. 110, 406 P.2d 745 (1965), State v. Goodyear, 98 Ariz. 304,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Counterman
...error. A.R.S. § 13--1715. On 27 April, 1966, this Court affirmed the conviction, finding no fundamental error in the record. 3 Ariz.App. 244, 413 P.2d 575 (1966). Thereafter the United States Supreme Court rendered its opinion in the case of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396......
-
Ginn v. Superior Court In and For Pima County
...413 P.2d 571 ... 3 Ariz.App. 240 ... Ted L. GINN and Betty Jeanne Ginn, Petitioners, ... SUPERIOR COURT of the State of Arizona, IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF PIMA, and the State of Arizona, Respondents ... No. 2 CA-CIV 195 ... Court of Appeals of Arizona ... April ... ...
-
State v. Slankard
...A.R.S. the Court must search the record for fundamental error. State v. Burrell, 96 Ariz. 233, 393 P.2d 921 (1964); State v. Counterman, 3 Ariz.App. 244, 413 P.2d 575 (1966). On 28 March 1966, the defendant, a 17 year old who was AWOL from the Navy, entered the Salvation Army Thrift Store l......
-
Counterman v. Counterman
...after a domestic squabble. The criminal action was previously before this Court and the judgment affirmed. See State v. Counterman, 3 Ariz.App. 244, 413 P.2d 575 (1966). After service in the Maricopa County Jail 14 June 1965, the defendant, who was represented by other counsel in the crimin......