Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2017-0332
07-05-2018
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. EDUARDO CASTRO, Appellant.
COUNSEL James Fullin, Pima County Legal Defender By Jeffrey Kautenburger, Assistant Legal Defender, Tucson Counsel for Appellant
THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.19(e).
Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County
No. CR20164547001
The Honorable Janet C. Bostwick, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
James Fullin, Pima County Legal Defender
By Jeffrey Kautenburger, Assistant Legal Defender, Tucson
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Chief Judge Eckerstrom authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Staring and Judge Brearcliffe concurred.
ECKERSTROM, Chief Judge:
¶1 After a jury trial, Eduardo Castro was convicted of three counts of aggravated driving with an alcohol concentration of .08 or greater, having committed the underlying offense: (1) while having a suspended, revoked, or restricted license, (2) having committed or been convicted of two or more prior driving under the influence violations in the previous eighty-four months and, (3) while a minor was present. The trial court suspended the imposition of sentence on all counts, ordering Castro to serve concurrent four-month terms in the Arizona Department of Corrections for the first two counts to be followed by concurrent twenty-four month terms of probation.
¶2 Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530 (App. 1999), asserting he has reviewed the record but found no arguably meritorious issue to raise on appeal. Consistent with Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 32, he has provided "a detailed factual and procedural history of the case with citations to the record" and asks this court to search the record for error. Castro has not filed a supplemental brief.
¶3 Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury's verdicts, see State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2 (App. 1999), the evidence is sufficient to support the verdicts here, see A.R.S. §§ 28-1381(A)(2), 28-1383(A)(1), (2), (3). In September 2016, Castro was seen performing "an uncontrolled burnout" in a parking lot in his truck, with his four-year-old daughter as a passenger before proceeding onto a public road; testing of samples of Castro's blood taken within two hours of him driving showed the alcohol concentration to be .093. Castro had committed driving under the influence offenses in 2014 and 2015 and, as he admitted, his license was suspended and revoked at the time of his offenses. The court's disposition was lawful. See A.R.S. §§ 13-902(A), 28-1383(D).
¶4 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for reversible error, and have found none. Accordingly, we affirm Castro's convictions and related terms of probation.