 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Godoy1/22/2004
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court
After a jury trial, appellant Augustine Martinez Godoy was convicted of aggravated driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI) and aggravated driving with an alcohol concentration of.10 or greater, both with a suspended or revoked license. He was sentenced to concurrent, substantially mitigated, six-year prison terms, to be served concurrently with another unrelated prison term. On appeal, Godoy raises one issue: whether his speedy trial rights under Rule 8.2, Ariz. R. Crim. P., 16A A.R.S., the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and article II, § 24 of the Arizona Constitution were violated.
We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdicts and resolve all reasonable inferences against Godoy. See State v. Riley, 196 Ariz. 40, 992 P.2d 1135 (App. 1999). Godoy was arrested on the charges on April 24, 1998. On September 15, 1998, he was sentenced on an unrelated charge to five years of imprisonment in the Arizona Department of Corrections (DOC). On January 6, 1999, the state filed an indictment in this case, and a summons was issued. On January 8, the state attempted to serve the summons by certified mail upon Godoy at his last known address. The receipt shows the signature of a person named Godoy, but not Augustine Martinez Godoy. Because Godoy did not appear for his initial appearance, an arrest warrant was issued on January 15.
The record on appeal reflects no further action until October 3, 2000, when Godoy mailed a notice to the clerk of the Pima County Superior Court, stating that he was in prison and requesting that all charges be dismissed or that he be sentenced " n absentia" to a sentence to be served concurrently with the sentence he was then serving. At the state's request, the trial court issued a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum in November, and Godoy was transported from DOC to the trial court for arraignment on the charges on November 21.
In a minute entry dated January 18, 2001, the trial court noted that Godoy's Rule 8 time limit would expire on February 19, 2001. At a case management conference on January 19, the trial court set Godoy's trial for April 10. See former Ariz. R. Crim. P. 8.2(f), 189 Ariz. LXIII (1997). According to a minute entry dated February 22, 2001, Godoy's attorney told the trial court that he had been attempting to obtain a plea offer from the state and that Godoy was willing to waive the time limit and have the matter set for trial. The trial court then reset the trial date to May 8. On May 7, the state requested a continuance, to which Godoy had stipulated, and the court reset trial to July 31, the date trial actually began. Following his convictions and sentencing, Godoy filed this delayed appeal.
RULE 8.2 TIME LIMITS
Godoy argues that the trial court violated his speedy trial rights under Rule 8.2(a), Ariz. R. Crim. P., by failing to try him within 150 days of his arrest or the service of summons and by failing to use due diligence to locate him after these charges were filed against him. We review for an abuse of discretion whether a trial court properly applied the provisions of Rule 8.2(a). State v. Spreitz, 190 Ariz. 129, 945 P.2d 1260 (1997). Rule 8.2 provides a criminal defendant a procedural speedy trial right. State v. Guerrero, 159 Ariz. 568, 769 P.2d 1014 (1989). In pertinent part, the rule, as it read at the time Godoy was facing trial, stated:
Rule 8.2. Time limits
a. All Defendants. Every person against whom an indictment, information or complaint is filed shall be tried by the court having jurisdiction of
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Arizona DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|