Opinion
2 CA-CR 2024-0060
09-17-2024
The State of Arizona, Appellee, v. Karen Christine Burgan, Appellant.
Robert A. Kerry, Tucson Counsel for Appellant
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County No. CR20202208001 The Honorable Renee T. Bennett, Judge
Robert A. Kerry, Tucson Counsel for Appellant
Judge Vasquez authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge O'Neil and Vice Chief Judge Eppich concurred.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
VASQUEZ, JUDGE
¶1 After a jury trial, Karen Burgan was convicted of manslaughter, criminal damage, and two counts of aggravated driving under the influence of alcohol. The trial court sentenced her to concurrent prison terms, the longest of which is twenty-one years.
¶2 On appeal, counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), asserting he reviewed the record but found "[n]o arguable question of law." Consistent with State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 30 (App. 1999), counsel has provided a factual and procedural history of the case with citations to the record and has asked this court to search the record for reversible error. Burgan has filed a supplemental brief asserting the trial court erred by denying her motion for a mistrial and failing to "give serious consideration to all the mitigating circumstances" in imposing her sentences.
¶3 Viewed in the light most favorable to affirming the verdicts, see State v. Holle, 240 Ariz. 300, ¶ 2 (2016), the evidence is sufficient here, see A.R.S. §§ 13-1103(A)(1), 13-1602(A)(1), 28-1381(A)(1), (2), 28-1383(A)(4). In May 2020, Burgan was driving under the influence of alcohol without a required ignition interlock device in her vehicle, turned into oncoming traffic, and collided with a motorcyclist who died from his injuries. Burgan's blood alcohol concentration within two hours of the collision was .274. The sentences imposed are within the statutory ranges. See A.R.S. §§ 13-703(F), (I), 13-1103(D), 13-1602(B)(3), 28-1383(O)(1). We have reviewed the arguments Burgan identified in her supplemental brief and have concluded none are arguable issues requiring further briefing. See State v. Thompson, 229 Ariz. 43, ¶ 3 (App. 2012).
The trial court did not err by denying Burgan's mistrial motion and determining the proper remedy was to dismiss the only juror who heard a prejudicial comment from the gallery on the third day of trial. See State v. Blackman, 201 Ariz. 527, ¶ 41 (App. 2002) (“We review a trial court's denial of a motion for mistrial for an abuse of discretion, bearing in mind that a mistrial is a ‘most dramatic' remedy that ‘should be granted only when it appears that that is the only remedy to ensure justice is done.'” (quoting State v. Maximo, 170 Ariz. 94, 98-99 (App. 1991))). And, contrary to Burgan's argument, the court explicitly considered the defense memorandum with attachments, which includes all of the circumstances Burgan contends the court failed to consider in fashioning her sentence.
¶4 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for reversible error, including the purported errors Burgan identified in her supplemental brief, and have found none. See State v. Fuller, 143 Ariz. 571, 575 (1985). Accordingly, we affirm Burgan's convictions and sentences.