Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 14-0803
02-25-2016
STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. ROBERT R. FARINAS, Appellant.
COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Joseph T. Maziarz Counsel for Appellee Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, Phoenix By Spencer D. Heffel 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. CR2014-001029-001
The Honorable Brian Kaiser, 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 Spencer D. Heffel
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Maurice Portley delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge John C. Gemmill and Judge Michael J. Brown joined. PORTLEY, Judge:
¶1 This is an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969). Counsel for Defendant Robert Farinas has filed a brief advising us that he has been unable to discover any arguable questions of law after searching the entire record, and requests we conduct an Anders review of the record. Defendant was given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief but has not done so.
FACTS
We view the facts "in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and we resolve all reasonable inferences against defendant." State v. Gallegos, 178 Ariz. 1, 9, 870 P.2d 1097, 1105 (1997) (citation omitted).
¶2 Farinas, while driving, struck another car. The victim followed his car into a fast food parking lot. Although Farinas left his car, the victim called the police. After the police arrived, the victim noticed Farinas was walking back into the area, and he was detained.
¶3 The officer noticed Farinas' eyes were watery. Another officer conducted the DUI investigation, noticed the classic signs of intoxication, and arrested Farinas after he refused to perform any field sobriety tests. Later, the police secured a sample of Farinas' blood, and testing revealed a blood-alcohol reading of 0.165 percent.
¶4 Farinas was charged with two counts of aggravated driving or actual physical control while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. He turned down a plea offer, and the case went to trial before a jury. The jury found Farinas guilty as charged, and the jury also found five aggravating factors during the second phase of the trial. The trial court then conducted a bench trial on Farinas' priors and found he had one prior for enhancement purposes. Farinas was subsequently sentenced to six years in prison and given 263 days of presentence incarceration credit.
¶5 We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and Arizona Revised Statutes sections 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and -4033(A)(1).
We cite the current version of the applicable statutes absent changes material to this decision.
DISCUSSION
¶6 We have read and considered the opening brief. We have read and considered the entire record for reversible error. We find none. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881.
¶7 All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. The record, as presented, reveals that Farinas was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings. He was offered and rejected a plea offer. He challenged the identification by the victim of the car and her passenger, and after a Dessureault hearing, the State was allowed to use the out-of-court identification, as well as the in-court identification. The State presented evidence for each element of each count, including the fact that Farinas' driving privilege had been suspended prior to the incident giving rise to the charges. Counsel for Farinas cross-examined all witnesses. The jury was properly instructed, and determined that the State had met its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And the sentence was within the statutory limits given the aggravating factors found by the jury, and the sentencing enhancements. Accordingly, we find no reversible error.
State v. Dessureault, 104 Ariz. 380, 453 P.2d 951 (1969). --------
¶8 After this decision is filed, counsel's obligation to represent Farinas in this appeal has ended. Counsel must only inform Farinas of the status of the appeal and his future options, unless counsel identifies an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984). Farinas may, if desired, file a motion for reconsideration or petition for review pursuant to the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.
CONCLUSION
¶9 Accordingly, we affirm Farinas' convictions and sentences.