Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 14-0039
02-24-2015
STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. JERRY A. EDGEMON, Appellant.
COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Joseph T. Maziarz Counsel for Appellee Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, Phoenix By Tennie B. Martin Counsel for Appellant
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2003-035450-001
The Honorable Justin Beresky, Judge Pro Tempore
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix
By Joseph T. Maziarz
Counsel for Appellee
Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, Phoenix
By Tennie B. Martin
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Randall M. Howe delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Patricia A. Orozco and Judge Maurice Portley joined.
HOWE, Judge:
¶1 This appeal is filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969). Counsel for Jerry Alvin Edgemon asks this Court to search the record for fundamental error. Edgemon was given an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona. He has not done so. After reviewing the record, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 In June 2003, Edgemon was charged with aggravated assault, a class 2 felony (Count 1); aggravated driving under the influence (DUI), a class 4 felony (Count 2); and unlawful flight from law enforcement vehicle, a class 5 felony (Count 3). Edgemon pled no contest to Count 1, but guilty on Counts 2 and 3. The superior court sentenced Edgemon to seven years of supervised probation on Counts 1 and 2, and to three years of supervised probation on Count 3, to be served consecutively. The terms of Edgemon's probation required him to obey all laws ("Term 1").
¶3 In October 2013, the State petitioned to revoke Edgemon's probation. At the disposition hearing, a Yavapai County Sheriff's Office deputy testified that he responded to a call reporting that Edgemon was driving while intoxicated. A DUI investigation revealed that Edgemon exhibited symptoms of intoxication, performed poorly on the administered field sobriety tests, and had a suspended driver's license. A blood test later revealed that Edgemon had a blood alcohol concentration of 0.272.
¶4 The superior court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Edgemon violated Term 1 by committing aggravated DUI. At the disposition hearing, the superior court reinstated Edgemon to seven years of intensive probation with a revised expiration date of January 13, 2015. This appeal followed these decisions of the superior court.
DISCUSSION
¶5 Having considered defense counsel's brief and examined the record for reversible error, see Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881, we find none. The evidence presented supports the convictions and the sentences imposed fall within the range permitted by law. As far as the record reveals, Edgemon was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, and these proceedings were conducted in compliance with his constitutional and statutory rights and the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.
¶6 Pursuant to State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984), counsel's obligations in this appeal have ended. Counsel need do no more than inform Edgemon of the disposition of the appeal and his future options, unless counsel's review reveals an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. Edgemon has 30 days from the date of this decision in which to proceed, if he desires, with a pro se motion for reconsideration or petition for review.
CONCLUSION
¶7 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.