State of Arizona v. Daniel Andrew Snider
671 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 4, 233 Ariz. 243, 311 P.3d 656 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A sentencing enhancement statute requiring a defendant to have been "previously convicted" of two or more serious offenses does not apply when the offenses are consolidated for a single trial, as such convictions are not temporally prior to one another.
Facts:
- Between October 18 and December 23, 2010, Daniel Snider committed a series of nine bank robberies in Pima County, Arizona.
- During each robbery, Snider wore a dark hooded sweatshirt with a scarf or handkerchief covering his face.
- Snider would display a handgun, provide the bank teller with a grocery bag, and demand all the money from the cash drawer.
- In a December 17 robbery (count twenty), another bank employee saw Snider with a handgun, but the victim teller, K.M., did not testify to seeing the weapon herself.
- In a December 23 robbery (count twenty-two), Snider showed a gun to one teller, but the victim teller, K.S., was focused on getting the money and did not see the gun.
- Snider was apprehended by police shortly after the December 23 robbery.
- During a subsequent police interview, Snider admitted to committing the robberies.
Procedural Posture:
- Daniel Snider was charged in a single indictment in an Arizona trial court with twenty-four counts, including first-degree burglary and armed robbery.
- The state alleged that Snider was subject to a mandatory life sentence under A.R.S. § 13-706(A).
- A jury found Snider guilty of twenty-one of the counts.
- The trial court sentenced Snider to multiple terms, including life imprisonment on eighteen counts pursuant to § 13-706(A).
- Snider, the appellant, appealed his sentences and two of his convictions to the Arizona Court of Appeals, with the state as appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the sentencing statute A.R.S. § 13-706(A), which imposes a life sentence for defendants with two or more prior serious offense convictions, apply when the offenses are consolidated for a single trial and the defendant has no pre-existing criminal convictions?
Opinions:
Majority - Vásquez, P.J.
No, the life sentences imposed under A.R.S. § 13-706(A) are illegal. This statute applies only when a defendant has been 'previously convicted' of two or more serious offenses, which requires that the convictions precede the commission of the subsequent offense. The court reasoned that when offenses are consolidated for a single trial, one conviction cannot precede another, so none of the convictions qualify as 'prior' for the purposes of the statute. The state conceded this error, and the court determined that the proper sentencing scheme was under A.R.S. § 13-704(F), which governs dangerous offenses consolidated for trial. The court also held that the evidence was sufficient for the armed robbery convictions because the statute only requires being 'armed with a deadly weapon,' not that the specific victim sees or is threatened by the weapon, and other witnesses testified to seeing the gun.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the strict temporal requirement for applying recidivist sentencing statutes in Arizona. It establishes that 'prior convictions' under statutes like A.R.S. § 13-706(A) must be formally adjudicated before the commission of the new offense. This prevents prosecutors from aggregating multiple counts in a single indictment to trigger a 'three-strikes' life sentence, reserving such enhancements for offenders who have been convicted and then reoffend. The ruling reinforces the distinction between sentencing schemes for repeat offenders versus those for individuals convicted of multiple offenses in a single proceeding.
