Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 19-0336
06-16-2020
STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. LILIANA ALEJANDRA MACIAS, Appellant.
COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Michael O'Toole Counsel for Appellee Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, Phoenix By Scott L. Boncoskey 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. CR2015-147535-001
The Honorable Cynthia L. Gialketsis, Judge Pro Tempore
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix
By Michael O'Toole
Counsel for Appellee
Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, Phoenix
By Scott L. Boncoskey
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Randall M. Howe delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Chief Judge Peter B. Swann 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 (1969). Counsel for Liliana Macias has advised this Court that he has found no arguable questions of law and asks us to search the record for fundamental error. Macias was convicted of two counts of aggravated DUI, class 4 felonies. Macias was given an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona; she has not done so. After reviewing the record, we affirm Macias's convictions and sentences.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the judgment and resolve all reasonable inferences against Macias. See State v. Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230 ¶ 2 (App. 1998). In October 2019, Macias ran a red light on McDowell Road and 19th Avenue nearly hitting a Department of Public Safety patrol car. The officer swerved to avoid being hit, pulled behind Macias, and conducted a traffic stop.
¶3 When the officer approached the car, he smelled a strong odor of alcohol and saw a beer can behind Macias's leg. The beer can was nearly empty and still cold to the touch. The officer noticed she had slurred speech and bloodshot, watery eyes. Another officer arrived to conduct a DUI investigation. Macias completed field sobriety tests, including the horizontal gaze nystagmus, the walk-and-turn, the one-leg stand, and the finger-to-nose tests. The officer noticed several clues of impairment during each test and arrested Macias for DUI. Macias was taken to the police station where she provided two breath samples to determine her breath alcohol concentration. Her first two breath samples were unsuccessful because they were not within .02 alcohol concentration of one another. Macias provided two additional, successful breath samples that showed she had a breath alcohol concentration of .181 and .182.
¶4 The State charged Macias with two counts of aggravated DUI because her driver's license was suspended when she committed the offenses. The State alleged that Macias had two prior felony convictions and alleged two aggravating circumstances: that Macias had a prior felony conviction in the last ten years and that she committed the offenses while on probation.
¶5 At trial, a custodian of records for the Arizona Motor Vehicle Division testified that Macias's driver's license was suspended when she committed the offenses and that she was notified of the suspension by mail. After trial, the jury convicted Macias of both DUI counts and, during the aggravation phase, found that the State had proved Macias committed the offenses while on probation. At sentencing, Macias stipulated to her two prior felony convictions in exchange for the State withdrawing the allegation that she committed the offenses while on probation. As part of the stipulation, Macias also agreed that her sentence would be no less than 8 years' imprisonment. Based on Macias's stipulation, and the certified copies of her prior convictions, the court found that she had two prior felony convictions and sentenced her to two concurrent 8-year prison terms for both DUI convictions with 125 days' presentence incarceration credit. Macias timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
¶6 We review Macias's convictions and sentences for fundamental error. See State v. Flores, 227 Ariz. 509, 512 ¶ 12 (App. 2011). Counsel for Macias has advised this Court that after a diligent search of the entire record, he has found no arguable question of law.
¶7 We have read and considered counsel's brief and fully reviewed the record for reversible error, see Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, and find none. All the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. So far as the record reveals, counsel represented Macias at all stages of the proceedings, and the sentence imposed was within the statutory guidelines. We decline to order briefing and affirm Macias's convictions and sentences.
¶8 Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel shall inform Macias of the status of the appeal and of her future options. Counsel has no further obligations unless, upon review, counsel finds an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85 (1984). Macias shall have
30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if she desires, with a pro per motion for reconsideration or petition for review.
CONCLUSION
¶9 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.