Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2018-0240
03-11-2019
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. RUBEN RENE ROJAS, Appellant.
COUNSEL E.M. Hale Law PLLC, Lakeside By Elizabeth M. Hale 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 Graham County
No. CR2008268
The Honorable Michael D. Peterson, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
E.M. Hale Law PLLC, Lakeside
By Elizabeth M. Hale
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Staring authored the decision of the Court, in which Judge Vásquez and Judge Brearcliffe concurred.
STARING, Presiding Judge:
¶1 Pursuant to a 2008 plea agreement, Ruben Rojas was convicted of aggravated driving or actual physical control of a vehicle with an alcohol concentration of .08 or greater while his driver license was suspended or revoked. The trial court placed him on a five-year probation term, to begin after he served an eight-year prison term imposed in another case.
¶2 In 2018, pursuant to three petitions to revoke, the trial court revoked probation and sentenced Rojas to a 3.75-year prison term. 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), stating she has reviewed the record and has found no "arguable issue for the purposes of this appeal." Counsel has asked us to search the record for reversible error. Rojas has filed a supplemental brief stating that the terms and conditions of his probation "were not brought to the Petition to Revoke Hearing" and noting his trial counsel had asked that the various revocation petitions be dismissed because "there was no factual basis to violate [Rojas] present[ed] at the hearing." We affirm.
¶3 After a contested hearing, the trial court found that Rojas had violated the terms and conditions of his probation by: (1) being arrested for aggravated DUI and extreme DUI; (2) consuming alcohol; (3) failing to report to his probation officer as directed; (4) changing residences without approval; (5) failing to report for drug testing; (6) failing to make payments toward court-imposed fines and fees; (7) being arrested for possession of a narcotic drug for sale, possession of a narcotic drug, and possession of drug paraphernalia; (8) associating with a person known to have a criminal history; and (9) possessing a narcotic drug and paraphernalia. Viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the trial court's findings, the evidence presented at the hearing is sufficient to support those findings here. The sentence imposed is within the statutory range. A.R.S. §§ 13-702(D); 28-1383(O)(1).
¶4 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for reversible error and found none, and Rojas has identified no reversible error in his supplemental brief. We therefore affirm the trial court's finding that Rojas violated the terms of his probation and the sentence imposed.