Opinion
2 CA-CR 2024-0082
09-10-2024
The State of Arizona, Appellee, v. Terrill Addison Lundeen, Appellant.
Sharmila Roy, Plainfield, Illinois Counsel for Appellant
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County No. CR20183504001 The Honorable Brenden J. Griffin, Judge The Honorable James E. Marner, Judge
Sharmila Roy, Plainfield, Illinois Counsel for Appellant
Vice Chief Judge Eppich authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Sklar and Judge Gard concurred.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
EPPICH, VICE CHIEF JUDGE
¶1 After a jury trial, appellant Terrill Lundeen was convicted of aggravated driving under the influence while impaired to the slightest degree while a certified ignition interlock device was required. The trial court sentenced him to an enhanced, mitigated six-year term of imprisonment.
¶2 On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), asserting she has reviewed the record but "has found no arguable issues 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. Lundeen has filed a supplemental brief in which he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction in light of his acquittal on a charge of aggravated driving under the influence with an alcohol concentration of .08 or more.
¶3 Viewed in the light most favorable to affirming the verdict, State v. Holle, 240 Ariz. 300, ¶ 2 (2016), the evidence is sufficient here, see A.R.S. §§ 28-1381(A)(1), 28-1383(A)(4). In July 2018, after Lundeen committed several traffic violations, an officer initiated a traffic stop, smelled an "odor of intoxicants coming from the car," and noticed that Lundeen had "bloodshot and watery" eyes. Lundeen was required to have an ignition interlock device on his vehicle but had borrowed a car without one, admitted to drinking alcohol, and exhibited several cues for intoxication.
¶4 The record supports the trial court's finding of at least two historical prior felony convictions. See A.R.S. § 13-105(22). The sentence imposed is within the statutory range. See A.R.S. §§ 13-703(C), (J), 28-1383(O)(1).
¶5 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for reversible error and have found none. See State v. Fuller, 143 Ariz. 571, 575 (1985). We have also considered the issue identified by Lundeen in his supplemental brief and have determined it is not an arguable issue requiring further briefing. See State v. Thompson, 229 Ariz. 43, ¶ 3 (App. 2012). Accordingly, we affirm Lundeen's conviction and sentence.