Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2016-0040
06-06-2016
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. OSCAR MIGUEL MARTINEZ, Appellant.
COUNSEL Nicole Farnum, Phoenix 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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. 31.24.
Appeal from the superior court in Pima county
No. CR20150748001
The Honorable Carmine Cornelio, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Nicole Farnum, Phoenix
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Miller authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Vásquez and Chief Judge Eckerstrom concurred.
MILLER, Judge:
¶1 After a jury trial, Oscar Martinez was convicted of aggravated driving while under the influence of an intoxicant and aggravated driving with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .08 or greater, both with a suspended or revoked license. He was sentenced to concurrent, one-year prison terms for each offense. Counsel asks us to search the record for error, asserting she has reviewed the record but found no arguable issue to raise on appeal and citing Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969). Martinez has not filed a supplemental brief.
¶2 Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury's verdicts, see State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999), sufficient evidence supports them here. In February 2015, a deputy sheriff stopped Martinez, whose driver's license had been suspended and revoked, for speeding, and subsequently investigated him for driving under the influence; Martinez had been driving erratically and performed poorly on field sobriety tests, and laboratory testing of a sample of his blood obtained pursuant to a warrant showed his BAC was .17. A.R.S. §§ 8-1381(A)(1), (2); 28-1383(A)(1). And sufficient evidence supports the trial court's conclusion that Martinez has a previous felony conviction. His sentences are within the statutory range and were properly imposed. A.R.S. §§ 13-703(A), (H); 28-1383(L)(1).
¶3 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental error and found none. See State
v. Fuller, 143 Ariz. 571, 575, 694 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1985). We therefore affirm Martinez's convictions and sentences.