 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Valencia1/9/2004
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court
After a jury trial, appellant Armando Gabriel Valencia was convicted of aggravated assault causing serious physical injury, aggravated driving under the influence of an intoxicant while his license was revoked, and three counts of endangerment, all with one prior felony conviction. The jury found Valencia guilty of the endangerment counts after they were unable to agree whether he was guilty of the greater offense of aggravated assault with a dangerous instrument (his car). The trial court sentenced Valencia to concurrent prison terms, the longest of which was 6.5 years.
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), stating that she has diligently searched the record and found no arguable issues to raise on appeal. Valencia has not filed a supplemental brief.
The evidence against Valencia was overwhelming. Valencia and several friends drove in two cars from Tucson to Madera Canyon, stayed there for a time, and then drove back toward Tucson. Three women and a child were in one car; Valencia and three other men were in the other. About five miles down the road, Valencia attempted to pass the women's car; moved across solid, double, yellow lines; went off the two-lane road to the left; swerved back across the road in front of the women's car; and reversed 180 degrees. The car left the road and rolled three times, coming to rest about thirty yards off the road.
The parties stipulated that: (1) Valencia had been driving fifty-eight miles per hour when he first applied the brakes and the car traveled 244 feet before it came to rest; (2) the speed limit was forty-five miles per hour; (3) just before Valencia swerved, he had been passing a vehicle in a no-passing zone; (4) Valencia's license was revoked at the time, and he knew or should have known it was revoked; and (5) a sample of Valencia's blood was taken afterward, and testing showed he had a 0.09 alcohol concentration while a 0.08 concentration is the level at which all people are presumed impaired.
Valencia and his three passengers were injured, one of them seriously. That passenger, R., suffered a broken neck and was in a coma for three and one-half weeks. He also lost the use of his right arm and hand and suffered partial amnesia. An officer who had interviewed Valencia at the scene testified that Valencia had said "he was so upset over [R.] because it had been all [Valencia's] fault." Valencia admitted to another officer that he had been drinking. Valencia told the officer the road had been straight and he had wanted to pass a car in front of him. He said his tires had caught the left side of the pavement, he had overcorrected and the car had swerved, gone off the right side of the road, and rolled over.
Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental error and have found none. Accordingly, we affirm Valencia's convictions and sentences.
JOHN PELANDER, Presiding Judge
CONCURRING:
PHILIP G. ESPINOSA, Chief Judge
PETER J. ECKERSTROM, Judge
|