Opinion
2 CA-CR 2022-0162
07-31-2023
The State of Arizona, Appellee, v. Mustafa Shayan, Appellant.
Law Offices of Thomas Jacobs, Tucson By Thomas Jacobs Counsel for Appellant
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County No. CR20143761001 The Honorable James E. Marner, Judge AFFIRMED
Law Offices of Thomas Jacobs, Tucson By Thomas Jacobs Counsel for Appellant
Vice Chief Judge Staring authored the decision of the Court, in which Judge Sklar and Judge O'Neil concurred.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
STARING, VICE CHIEF JUDGE:
¶1 After a jury trial, appellant Mustafa Shayan was convicted of aggravated driving under the influence and aggravated driving with an alcohol concentration (AC) of .08 or more. The trial court sentenced him- as a category two repetitive offender-to mitigated, concurrent prison terms of 3.5 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 has reviewed the record and "has not found any issue that is not frivolous." Consistent with State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 30 (App. 1999), counsel has provided "a detailed factual and procedural history of the case, with citations to the record," and has asked this court to search the record for reversible error. Shayan has filed a supplemental brief, in which he suggests he was denied a "proper interpreter" and the trial court committed "misconduct" by denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal pursuant to Rule 20(a), Ariz. R. Crim. P.
¶3 Viewed in the light most favorable to affirming the jury's verdicts, see State v. Holle, 240 Ariz. 300, ¶ 2 (2016), the evidence is sufficient here, see A.R.S. §§ 28-1381(A)(1), (2), 28-1383(A)(1). Early one morning in August 2014, an officer stopped Shayan, whose license had been suspended and revoked, for speeding and immediately noticed signs of intoxication. Shayan performed poorly on field sobriety tests, and breathalyzer test results showed his AC to be .196 and .205.
¶4 The record also supports the trial court's finding that Shayan had one historical prior felony conviction. See A.R.S. § 13-105(22). The sentences imposed are within the statutory range. We have reviewed the arguments Shayan identified in his supplemental brief and have concluded none are arguable issues requiring further briefing. See State v. Thompson, 229 Ariz. 43, ¶ 3 (App. 2012).
¶5 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for reversible error, including the purported errors Shayan identified in his supplemental brief, and have found none. See State v. Fuller, 143 Ariz. 571, 575 (1985). Accordingly, we affirm Shayan's convictions and sentences.