IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

Similar documents
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 115,278. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, DAVID SHELDON MEARS, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 115,277. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, NICHOLAS W. FISHER, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 117,886 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee,

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 112,523 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, STACY A. GENSLER, Appellant.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 112,828 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, JUSTIN D. STANLEY, Appellant.

Ignition Interlock Device Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. CASE NO. 5D02-75

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA : : : : : : : : :

Driving Under the Influence House Sub. for SB 6

A. It is unlawful for a person who is under the influence of intoxicating liquor to drive a vehicle within this state.

INSTRUCTIONS - - Drug Prison In/Out Worksheet

2016 Mothers Against Drunk Driving

California Harbors & Navigation Code Boating Under the Influence

IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE CITY OF ELKO, COUNTY OF ELKO, STATE OF NEVADA

Follow this and additional works at:

The Basics of Missouri DWI Law. Presenter: Jason Korner

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES STAFF ANALYSIS REFERENCE ACTION ANALYST STAFF DIRECTOR

2016 PA Super 99 OPINION BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED MAY 13, Brian Michael Slattery appeals from his judgment of sentence after

INTRADEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE. The Honorable Board of Police Commissioners

Learning Objectives. Become familiar with: Elements of DWI offenses Implied consent Chemical test evidence Case law

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

DWI Loteria Talking Points

The judge must hold a sentencing hearing to determine if there are aggravating or mitigating factors that affect the sentence.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES STAFF ANALYSIS REFERENCE ACTION ANALYST STAFF DIRECTOR

MARICOPA COUNTY SHERIFF S OFFICE POLICY AND PROCEDURES

WISCONSIN LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL INFORMATION MEMORANDUM

POLICIES, PROCEDURES, AND RULES

ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION No. 64 STATE OF NEW JERSEY. 218th LEGISLATURE INTRODUCED FEBRUARY 1, 2018

CASE NO. PETITION FOR OCCUPATIONAL DRIVER S LICENSE

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CITY OF MCLOUTH, KANSAS DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL DIVERSION PROGRAM

62nd Legislature AN ACT ENCOURAGING DUI COURT PARTICIPATION; REVISING PENALTIES FOR DRIVING UNDER THE

ITSMR Research Note. Recidivism in New York State: A Status Report ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION KEY FINDINGS RECIDIVISM RATES

CITY OF CHESTERFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT GENERAL ORDER EFFECTIVE: AUGUST 28, 2005 CANCELS: GENERAL ORDER 87-02

Tyson W. Voyles vs. Safety

Paralegal Division MCLE Meeting Location: DuPage County Bar Center Classroom Date: December 6, 2018

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA

SECTION I: GENERAL INFORMATION {Indicate if analysis is on an original bill, amendment, substitute or a correction of a previous bill}

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OWI SENTENCING GUIDELINES

House Bill 2102 Sponsored by Representative HUFFMAN (Presession filed.)

2015 IL App (1st) SIXTH DIVISION August 21, 2015

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA

VEHICLE IMPOUND 3511

Follow this and additional works at: Part of the Administrative Law Commons

DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED PER SE (Unclassified Misdemeanor 1 ) VEHICLE & TRAFFIC LAW 1192(2) (Committed on or after Nov. 1, 1988)

OWI countermeasure that saves lives and taxpayers money while allowing offenders to be part of society and provide for their family.

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT **********

P.L. 2007, c.348 Approved January 13, 2008

Ohio Legislative Service Commission

Pennsylvania s Ignition Interlock Limited License Expanded and Remodeled

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 1:16-cv CC.

Caroline Co. Sheriff's Ofc. Case Report

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY CR DT 07/29/2011 HON. KAREN L. O'CONNOR

SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT GENERAL ORDERS

PRESENT: Kinser, C.J., Lemons, Goodwyn, Millette, Mims, and McClanahan, JJ., and Carrico, S.J.

Cannabis and Drug Impaired Driving Just the Facts

DRINKING & DRIVING WITH YOUR CHILD IN THE CAR.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS

2015 Community Report White Rock

UNOFFICIAL COPY OF SENATE BILL 53 CHAPTER

Petitioner, CASE NO.: CA O WRIT NO.: 06-44

2016 Community Report Los Alamos County

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA D.C. Code and Weil's Code of D.C. Municipal Regulations (CDCR)

2016 Community Report Portales

2014 Community Report Portales

2015 Community Report Grants

LEGAL BARRIERS TO PRISONER REENTRY IN NEW JERSEY

OVI/DUI/DWI DETECTION & LEGAL PENALTIES/COSTS

2014 Community Report Luna County

2016 Community Report Torrance County

2015 Community Report Torrance County

Commercial Driver s License Laws

2016 Community Report De Baca County

Driving JUST THE FACTS. consumed. driving crash. 2. An average of In 2016, a total. BAC=.08+ Drivers Involved. State. Number. Number Percent.

2015 Community Report Las Vegas

CRIMINAL OR ENHANCED CIVIL PENALTIES FOR IMPLIED CONSENT BREATH TEST REFUSAL

2015 Community Report Tularosa

DRIVER INFORMATION VEHICLE INFORMATION VEHICLE IN MOTION

Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs

2016 Community Report Santa Fe County

2014 Community Report Las Vegas

POLICE OFFICER (ASSIGNED AS TRAFFIC SPECIALIST) EXAM READING LIST

2014 Community Report Truth or Consequences

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES STAFF ANALYSIS REFERENCE ACTION ANALYST STAFF DIRECTOR

2015 Community Report Chaparral

2016 Community Report Aztec

2015 Community Report Aztec

2014 Community Report Tularosa

Photo: makeitzero.co.uk

Joint Operating Procedures for First Nations Consultation on Energy Resource Activities

2016 Community Report San Juan County

2015 Community Report San Juan County

2015 Community Report Doña Ana County

Drugged Driving: 2016 Summary of Key Provisions of State Laws

2015 Community Report Los Lunas

2014 Community Report Aztec

MELANIE S LAW The New OUI Law

PLEA NEGOTIATIONS. Sherry Levin Wallach, Esq. Wallach & Rendo LLP Mount Kisco, NY

Transcription:

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 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. VINCENT JOSEPH LUSANIA, Appellant. No. 1 CA-CR 09-0669 DEPARTMENT E MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR2007-169549-001 DT The Honorable Lisa Ann Vandenberg, Judge Pro Tem AFFIRMED Terry Goddard, Attorney General By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel, Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Attorney for Appellee Maricopa County Public Defender s Office By Kathryn L. Petroff, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix Phoenix G E M M I L L, Judge 1 Vincent Joseph Lusania appeals from his convictions and sentences on two counts of aggravated driving or actual physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs, class four felonies. Lusania 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 she has searched the record and found no arguable question of law and requesting that this court examine the record for reversible error. See Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000. Lusania was afforded the opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona but did not do so. 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 On October 26, 2007, at approximately 12:30 in the morning, Arizona Department of Public Safety ( DPS Officer A.G. was stopped at a freeway off ramp facing east when he observed a sports utility vehicle ( SUV travel past him going northbound at a speed exceeding the posted speed limit. The SUV s driver s side window was down and Officer A.G. observed a Hispanic male driving the vehicle. Officer A.G. decided to follow the SUV. He was driving an unmarked Crown Victoria equipped with a siren and lights in the front grill and back window. 4 Officer A.G. was following the SUV northbound when the 2

SUV approached an intersection and turned west, running through a red light. Officer A.G. turned on his car s lights and siren and continued to follow the SUV westbound. As the SUV traveled westbound it reached speeds of 85 to 90 miles per hour. The SUV approached an intersection with a red light and turned north without coming to a complete stop. The SUV eventually pulled into a driveway in front of a house. During the entire pursuit, Office A.G. never lost sight of the SUV. 5 Once at the residence, Officer A.G. parked his car behind the SUV and got out. The SUV s two occupants got out of the SUV at the same time Officer A.G. was exiting his car. Officer A.G. approached the driver s side door of the SUV and made contact with Lusania, the occupant who was in the driver s seat. Lusania was walking towards the house when Officer A.G. stopped him. The other occupant of the SUV, Lusania s wife, went inside the house. 6 Officer A.G. recognized Lusania as the man he saw driving the SUV when it initially passed him while he was on the freeway off ramp. He asked Lusania why he was driving so fast and Lusania indicated he needed to get his wife home. While speaking with Lusania, Officer A.G. observed that Lusania had bloodshot, watery eyes and had the smell of an alcoholic beverage on this breath. Officer A.G. asked Lusania to do a field sobriety test and Lusania declined. Officer A.G. placed 3

Lusania under arrest for DUI and Lusania was taken to jail. At approximately 2:02 that same morning, a sample of Lusania s blood was drawn pursuant to a search warrant. The blood sample was tested and it was determined that Lusania s blood alcohol concentration was.178 percent. It was later determined that Lusania was driving on a suspended license. 7 On November 3, 2008, Lusania was indicted on two counts of aggravated driving or actual physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs. The first count was for driving while impaired to the slightest degree. The second count was for driving with a blood alcohol concentration of.08 or more. Both counts were aggravated because they occurred while driving on a suspended license. After a jury trial in June 2009, Lusania was found guilty as charged. For each conviction, the court sentenced Lusania to a four-month prison term, with presentence incarceration credit of 64 days, followed by supervised probation for three years, to be served concurrently. 8 Lusania timely appealed and we have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes ( A.R.S. sections 12-120.21(A(1 (2003, 13-4031 (2010, and 13-4033(A (2010. DISCUSSION 9 Having considered defense counsel s brief and examined the record for reversible error, see Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 4

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, Lusania was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, and these proceedings were conducted in compliance with his 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 Lusania of the disposition of the appeal and his future options, unless counsel s review reveals an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. Lusania has thirty days from the date of this decision in which to proceed, if he desires, with a pro se motion for reconsideration or petition for review. CONCLUSION 11 Lusania s convictions and sentences are affirmed. CONCURRING: /s/ SHELDON H. WESIBERG, Presiding Judge /s/ PHILIP HALL, Judge /s/ JOHN C. GEMMILL, Judge 5