 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Roffinoli6/13/2003
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court
AFFIRMED
A jury found appellant Jason Louis Roffinoli guilty of aggravated driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUI) and aggravated driving with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of.10 or more, both committed while his driver's license was suspended or revoked. At sentencing, the trial court ordered him to serve concurrent, mandatory, four-month prison sentences pursuant to A.R.S. § 28-1383(D), followed by five years' probation. Counsel has filed a brief invoking Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969). Roffinoli has not filed a supplemental brief.
The single issue counsel suggests on appeal is whether the state presented sufficient evidence to withstand a motion for judgment of acquittal pursuant to Rule 20, Ariz. R. Crim. P., 17 A.R.S., that Roffinoli's driver's license was in fact suspended on the date of these offenses.
The test for granting a Rule 20 motion is whether "there is no substantial evidence to warrant a conviction." Ariz. R. Crim. P. 20(a). "Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla and is such proof that 'reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.'" State v. Mathers, 165 Ariz. 64, 67, 796 P.2d 866, 869 (1990), quoting State v. Jones, 125 Ariz. 417, 419, 610 P.2d 51, 53 (1980). On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and we resolve all reasonable inferences against Roffinoli. State v. Carlisle, 198 Ariz. 203, 8 P.3d 391 (App. 2000).
Thus viewed, the evidence showed that Roffinoli was arrested in the early morning hours of May 13, 2000, after he had been observed driving recklessly in a supermarket parking lot. The arresting officer testified that Roffinoli had exhibited a number of signs of intoxication and had admitted he had been drinking. Sequential breath tests administered shortly after his arrest measured his BAC at.234 and.230. The state charged him with aggravated DUI and aggravated driving with a BAC of.10 or more after determining that his driver's license was suspended at the time.
The motor vehicle division's custodian of records testified at trial that Roffinoli's driver's license was suspended on May 13, 2000. She testified that Roffinoli had been mailed notice of three suspensions of his license -- on May 9, September 3, and December 9, 1996 -- and had been served personally with notice of two additional suspensions dated November 24, 1998, and January 27, 1999. Further, she testified, his license had not been reinstated before May 13, 2000, although he had been issued an Arizona identification card on March 9 of that year. At that time, the custodian testified, the motor vehicle division would have advised Roffinoli in person that his driver's license was suspended.
The testimony of the records custodian provided ample evidence to withstand a Rule 20 motion and to sustain the jury's finding that Roffinoli's driver's license was indeed suspended on May 13, 2000. Although Roffinoli claimed to have gotten his license reinstated each time it had been suspended, he also testified variously that he thought he had had a valid license on May 13, 2000, but did not in fact actually know its status on that date. At most, Roffinoli's testimony and defense counsel's cross-examination of the records custodian about the possibility of error in the motor vehicle division's records created a triable issue of fact for the jury to resolve. A challenge to the weight or a
Page 1 2 Arizona DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|