Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 11-0263
01-24-2012
STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. RENEE A. TORRES, Appellant.
Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel, Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee Maricopa County Public Defender's Office By Terry J. Reid, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED
EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES.
See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c);
Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24
MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not for Publication - Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court)
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
Cause No. CR2010-115411-001DT
The Honorable Pamela Hearn Svoboda, Judge
AFFIRMED
Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General
By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel,
Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section
Attorneys for Appellee
Phoenix
Maricopa County Public Defender's Office
By Terry J. Reid, Deputy Public Defender
Attorneys for Appellant
Phoenix GEMMILL, Judge
¶1 Renee Torres appeals her convictions and sentences for two counts of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor: one count based on impairment to the slightest degree, and one count based on Torres's blood alcohol level being above the legal limit. Torres's counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), stating that he has searched the record and found no arguable question of law and requesting that this court examine the record for reversible error. Torres was afforded the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief but did not do so. See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d 89, 96 (App. 1999). For the following reasons, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 "We view the facts and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions." State v. Powers, 200 Ariz. 123, 124, ¶ 2, 23 P.3d 668, 669 (App. 2001).
¶3 A grand jury accused Torres of one count of aggravated driving while under the influence of alcohol (impairment to the slightest degree) and one count of aggravated driving while under the influence of alcohol (blood alcohol concentration above 0.08), both aggravated because her license was suspended at the time of her alleged offenses.
¶4 On the night of October 30, 2009, Torres rear-ended another vehicle stopped at a traffic light. A witness present at the scene approached Torres and asked if she was alright. The witness testified that he could smell alcohol on Torres's breath and asked Torres if she had been drinking. Torres replied that she had been drinking.
¶5 Officer D., of the Scottsdale Police Department, responded to the accident. Based on his extensive training in DUI matters, he concluded that Torres was impaired due to alcohol, and he subsequently arrested her. At the police station, Torres consented to allow her blood to be taken for a blood alcohol test. A criminalist analyzed Torres's blood and determined she had a blood alcohol level of 0.241.
¶6 A deputy custodian of records from the state motor vehicle division testified that Torres was driving on a suspended license when the car accident took place.
¶7 The jury found Torres guilty of the lesser included charges (instead of the aggravated charges) of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor: one count based on impairment to the slightest degree, and one count based on Torres's blood alcohol level being above the legal limit. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and imposed supervised probation for two years with numerous conditions, including a term of sixty days in the county jail.
¶8 Torres timely appeals and we have jurisdiction pursuant to the Arizona Constitution Article 6, Section 9, and Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") sections 12-120.21 (2003), 13-4031 (2010), and 13-4033 (2010).
We cite to the current version of the applicable statute because no revisions material to this decision have since occurred.
DISCUSSION
¶9 Having considered defense counsel's brief and examined the record for reversible error, see Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881, we find none. The sentence imposed falls within the range permitted by law, and the evidence presented supports the conviction. As far as the record reveals, Torres was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, and these proceedings were conducted in compliance with her constitutional and statutory rights and the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.
¶10 Pursuant to State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984), counsel's obligations in this appeal have ended. Counsel need do no more than inform Torres of the disposition of the appeal and her future options, unless counsel's review reveals an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. Torres has thirty days from the date of this decision in which to proceed, if she desires, with a pro se motion for reconsideration or petition for review.
CONCLUSION
¶11 The convictions and sentences are affirmed.
_________
JOHN C. GEMMILL, Judge
CONCURRING:
_________
JON W. THOMPSON, Presiding Judge
_________
MAURICE PORTLEY, Judge