 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Ramos3/31/2004
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court
AFFIRMED
After a jury trial, appellant Adam Ramos was convicted of aggravated driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI) while his driver's license was suspended and aggravated driving with an alcohol concentration of.10 or greater while his driver's license was suspended. After finding Ramos had a prior felony conviction and had been on probation when he committed these offenses, the trial court sentenced him to concurrent, presumptive terms of 4.5 years in prison. Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with 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), in which she states that she has searched the record and found no arguably meritorious issues to raise on appeal. See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999). Appellant has not filed a supplemental brief. We affirm.
We view the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the verdicts. State v. Riley, 196 Ariz. 40, 992 P.2d 1135 (App. 1999). About 1:30 a.m. on October 15, 2000, Tucson Police Officer Joshua Cheek was patrolling in Tucson when he saw a sports utility vehicle in front of him swerve across the center lane and the brake lights come on for no apparent reason. He stopped the vehicle. The driver, later identified as Ramos, swayed when he got out of the vehicle, and the officer noticed Ramos had a strong odor of alcohol and slurred speech. The officer saw a wet spot on Ramos's trousers and smelled an odor from which he concluded that Ramos had urinated on himself. Cheek examined Ramos's vehicle and found ten empty beer cans, five full cans, and one half-full can. The officer administered three field sobriety tests, on each of which Ramos performed poorly.
Officer Scott Sullivan arrived and administered breath tests on an Intoxilyzer 5000, which showed Ramos had alcohol concentrations of.254 and.235 less than an hour after he had been stopped. A records custodian for the Arizona Department of Transportation Motor Vehicle Division (MVD) testified that Ramos's license had been suspended on three previous occasions and was suspended when he was stopped. The custodian said MVD had mailed notice of two of the suspensions to Ramos, and a peace officer testified he personally served Ramos notice of the third suspension.
Ramos testified that he had finished a construction job about 10:30 p.m. the evening before he was stopped and that he had had four beers with friends, who had left the beer cans in the car. Ramos blamed his erratic driving on nervousness when he saw the officer behind him because he knew he had alcohol on his breath. He said he had never had a driver's license. We conclude the evidence supporting the jury's guilty verdicts was substantial.
Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental error and have found none. The judgment of convictions and the sentences of imprisonment are therefore affirmed.
CONCURRING:
M. JAN FLOREZ, Judge
JOSEPH W. HOWARD, Judge
|