Opinion
1 CA-CR 21-0184 1 CA-CR 21-0189
05-10-2022
STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. JAIME TRUJILLO, Appellant.
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Linley Wilson Counsel for Appellee Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, Phoenix By Jesse Finn Turner Counsel for Appellant
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Nos. CR2016-148168-001 and CR2012-121288-002 The Honorable Laura Johnson Giaquinto, Judge Pro Tempore
AFFIRMED
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Linley Wilson Counsel for Appellee
Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, Phoenix By Jesse Finn Turner Counsel for Appellant
Judge Peter B. Swann delivered the decision of the court, in which Presiding Judge Cynthia J. Bailey and Judge D. Steven Williams joined.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
SWANN, JUDGE
¶1 This is an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), from Jaime Trujillo's convictions and sentences for aggravated driving under the influence. Neither Trujillo nor his counsel identify any issues for appeal. We have reviewed the record for fundamental error. See Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000); Anders, 386 U.S. 738; State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999). We find none.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 Trujillo was indicted on four counts of aggravated driving under the influence. The state did not offer a plea, and the matter proceeded to a jury trial in absentia after Trujillo failed to appear for the first day of trial.
¶3 At trial, the state presented evidence of the following facts. During the early morning hours of October 10, 2016, Officer Chaumont of the Phoenix Police Department was patrolling the area around Southern and Central Avenue. At 3:25 a.m., Officer Chaumont stopped at an intersection where he observed a white sedan swerve as it approached the stoplight opposite him. Once the light turned green, Officer Chaumont changed course to follow the sedan. After seeing the car swerve outside of its lane multiple times, Officer Chaumont conducted a traffic stop.
¶4 Officer Chaumont smelled alcohol when he approached the driver, who was the only person in the car. The driver appeared confused when Officer Chaumont asked for his license and registration, and instead produced an Arizona ID card identifying himself as Jaime Garcia Trujillo. Chaumont ran Trujillo's ID card and learned that his driving privilege had been suspended or revoked. Trujillo confirmed that a judge had told him his license had been suspended.
¶5 When asked if he had been drinking, Trujillo told Officer Chaumont that he had about six beers and stopped drinking around 7:00 p.m. Officer Chaumont asked Trujillo to rate his impairment on a scale of zero to ten, zero being sober and ten being impaired. Trujillo rated himself at a two. Officer Chaumont then had Trujillo perform various field sobriety tests. Trujillo lost his balance and stepped off the line during the walk-and-turn test. During the one-legged stand test, he put his foot down multiple times, took thirty seconds to count to fifteen, and did not follow directions. Trujillo also failed the finger-to-nose test. Officer Dejesus arrived on the scene and conducted the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test, as Officer Chaumont was not trained to do so. Officer Dejesus observed six out of a possible six cues of impairment.
¶6 Following the completion of the field sobriety tests, Officer Chaumont placed Trujillo under arrest for suspicion of DUI. Trujillo consented to a blood draw, which took place at 4:42 a.m. Forensic scientist Gayle Swanson of the Phoenix Crime Lab conducted the analysis of Trujillo's blood sample. Trujillo had a blood alcohol concentration ("BAC") of .193. Swanson testified that the BAC level at which all people are impaired-to at least the slightest degree-from safely driving is .08.
¶7 As prior DUI convictions were elements of the charged offenses, see A.R.S. § 28-1383(A)(2), the state introduced evidence of Trujillo's two aggravated DUI convictions from 2012. The jury found Trujillo guilty as charged. In the subsequent aggravation phase, the jury found that Trujillo was on felony probation at the time of the offense. Trujillo received four concurrent sentences of 10.5 years of imprisonment with credit for 120 days of presentence incarceration. Trujillo appeals.
DISCUSSION
¶8 We have read and considered counsel's brief and have reviewed the record for fundamental error. We find none.
¶9 Though Trujillo was not present for his trial, there is no evidence in the record that his absence was involuntary. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. ("Rule") 9.1. Trujillo had been warned that proceedings could go forward without him. On the eve of trial, Trujillo attended a management conference where the court told him directly that trial would begin the following day. At sentencing, Trujillo admitted that he made "the wrong decision" in "not going through with the court process." We find no error in the superior court's decision to proceed in absentia.
¶10 The record reflects that the superior court afforded Trujillo all his constitutional and statutory rights and that the proceedings were conducted in accordance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. Trujillo was represented at all critical stages. The jury was properly comprised under A.R.S. § 21-102 and was properly instructed. The jury's verdicts were supported by sufficient evidence.
¶11 A person commits DUI when he drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle "[w]hile under the influence of intoxicating liquor . . . if the person is impaired to the slightest degree." A.R.S. § 28-1381(A)(1). A person also commits DUI when he has a BAC of .08 or more within two hours of driving or having actual physical control of a vehicle and "the alcohol concentration results from alcohol consumed either before or while driving or being in actual physical control of the vehicle." A.R.S. § 28-1381(A)(2). Basic DUI becomes aggravated under a multitude of circumstances, including when the offender's "driver license or privilege to drive is suspended, canceled, revoked or refused or while a restriction is placed on the person's driver license or privilege to drive as a result of violating § 28-1381 or 28-1382 or under § 28-1385," A.R.S. § 28-1383(A)(1), or when the person commits a third or subsequent DUI offense within 84 months of a DUI conviction, A.R.S. § 28-1383(A)(2).
¶12 Here, the state's evidence established that Trujillo drove a car while feeling the effects of alcohol. He submitted to a blood draw within two hours of the traffic stop, and his BAC of .193 was more than double the legal limit. His erratic driving, poor performance on field sobriety tests, and BAC are all evidence of impairment. See A.R.S. § 28-1381(G)(3) ("If there was at that time 0.08 or more alcohol concentration in the defendant's blood, breath or other bodily substance, it may be presumed that the defendant was under the influence of intoxicating liquor."). Trujillo also admitted to Officer Chaumont that he knew his driving privilege was suspended, and that he had a prior DUI conviction from 2012. In fact, he had two prior convictions from 2012, making this 2016 offense his third DUI within an 84-month period.
¶13 As there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the jury's verdicts, we affirm Trujillo's convictions. Trujillo's sentences fall within the ranges prescribed by law, with proper credit given for presentence incarceration. See A.R.S. §§ 28-1381(A)(1) & (A)(2), -1383(A)(1) & (A)(2) & (O)(1); A.R.S. §§ 13-701(F), -703(C) & (J), -708(C), -712(B).
CONCLUSION
¶14 We affirm. Defense counsel's obligations pertaining to this appeal have come to an end. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85 (1984). Unless, upon review, counsel discovers an issue appropriate for petition for review to the Arizona Supreme Court, counsel must only inform Trujillo of the status of this appeal and his future options. Id. Trujillo has 30 days from the date of this decision to file a petition for review in propria persona. See Rule 31.21(b)(2)(A). Upon the court's own motion, Trujillo has 30 days from the date of this decision in which to file a motion for reconsideration. See Rule 31.20(c).