 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Varela8/12/2003
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court
Appellant Elizabeth Varela was convicted after a jury trial of aggravated assault with a dangerous instrument, aggravated assault causing serious physical injury, aggravated driving under the influence (DUI) of an intoxicant while her license was suspended, and aggravated driving with a blood alcohol concentration of.10 or more while her license was suspended or revoked. The jury found that the assault with a dangerous instrument was a dangerous offense. The trial court sentenced Varela to presumptive, concurrent prison terms of 7.5 years on the assault convictions, and to concurrent prison terms of four months on the DUI convictions, to be followed by ten years' supervised probation. On appeal, Varela contends the imposition of presumptive sentences of 7.5 years, followed by a term of probation, was excessive in light of what she characterizes as overwhelming mitigating circumstances. We affirm.
We view the facts and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions. State v. Powers, 200 Ariz. 123, , 23 P.3d 668, (App. 2000). K. was driving north on Sixth Avenue in Tucson through the intersection with Drachman Street when his car was struck on the driver's side by an eastbound car driven by Varela, who failed to stop at a stop sign. K.'s car was irreparably damaged, and he suffered serious injuries. He had six surgeries and lost his bowel and bladder control and his ability to walk. He will need months of treatment and therapy to regain control of his body functions, the ability to walk, and basic motor skills.
Varela told a Tucson police officer who questioned her that she was not sure what had happened but said she had been driving about thirty-five to forty miles per hour when the crash occurred. She admitted that her driver's license was suspended and that she had no insurance. Blood test results established that her alcohol concentration was.175. A criminalist testified the reading meant that a woman of Varela's weight would have had to consume seven, twelve-ounce bottles of beer and that, based on evidence of when she had consumed alcohol before the accident, her alcohol concentration at the time of the collision had probably been.191.
At the sentencing hearing, defense counsel argued in mitigation that the intersection was confusing and that Varela had not been speeding or swerving. Defense counsel also told the court Varela was remorseful and upset and that she took full responsibility for driving on a suspended license, not having insurance, and her lack of foresight by drinking and driving. He also referred to the strong support Varela had from her family and her lack of prior felony convictions. K. described the nature and extent of his injuries and the on-going treatment. He stated he had not yet received a medical release to return to work. He had more surgery and therapy scheduled, and he estimated that it would be several months before he could work again.
The court first remarked that, "but for the grace of God," the offense charged would probably have been vehicular homicide. The court added that Varela was not a bad person but that she had made a bad choice that had affected not only K. but her children. Noting that Varela should have learned from her prior DUI conviction in 1997 that she needed alcohol abuse treatment and that she had ignored her mother's advice that she should not drive, the court said it had been disappointed by her testimony that consuming eight beers had had no effect on her. The court also noted her remorse appeared to be genuine but told Varela there were consequen
Page 1 2 Arizona DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|