 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Tobiasson1/20/2004
otion must be denied. State v. Landrigan, 176 Ariz. 1, 4, 859 P.2d 111, 114 (1993).
There was sufficient evidence to justify the trial court's denial of the Rule 20 motion. The custodian of records of MVD testified that Tobiasson's license was suspended and revoked in 1996, that notice of that status was mailed to him at the last address he had provided to MVD, and that a person has the "sole responsibility" to notify MVD of any change of address. Tobiasson was notified by personal service in October 1994 and November 1998 that the license was suspended. He was notified by mail in September 1999. After the witness was crossexamined about the various notices, on redirect examination she stated that Tobiasson had provided MVD with three or four addresses and that notices had been sent to them. Based on this evidence, regardless of any confusion as to Tobiasson's address, reasonable jurors could conclude that Tobiasson received at least one of these notices and that he knew at the time he was driving that his license had been suspended, revoked, or both.
Tobiasson also argues, although summarily, that the trial court erred by denying his pretrial, pro se motion to dismiss the charges based on an alleged violation of Rule 8, Ariz. R. Crim. P., 16A A.R.S. He filed a second pro se motion after trial urging that same argument. At the time, Rule 8.2(b) provided that a person in custody must be tried within 120 days of initial appearance or ninety days of arraignment, whichever is the lesser. He was arrested on May 27, 2002; his initial appearance was on June 17; and the case was set for trial for December 5, at the time he filed his motion. The record shows that Tobiasson waived periods of time by filing a motion to continue and a motion to remand the case to the grand jury for a new finding of probable cause in July 2002. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 8.4(b) and (d). Additionally, it does not appear that the trial court was notified of any impending Rule 8 violation before Tobiasson filed his pro se motion. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 8.1(d). Based on the excluded periods, we cannot say the trial court erred by denying his Rule 8 motions.
In one sentence, Tobiasson contends his sentence is excessive and violates the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Because Tobiasson has presented no argument or authority to support that claim, we do not address it. State v. Kemp, 185 Ariz. 52, 57, 912 P.2d 1281, 1286 (1996). In an equally summary fashion, he contends he was entitled to have the jury make a specific finding that he was guilty of an "aggravated crime," although he does provide some authority for this conclusory statement: Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 122 S. Ct. 2428, 153 L. Ed. 2d 556 (2002), and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S. Ct. 2348, 147 L. Ed. 2d 435 (2000). But the jury was properly instructed on the elements of the offense of aggravated DUI, and nothing more was required. We see no error.
We have reviewed the record for fundamental error but have found none. The convictions and the sentences are affirmed.
JOHN PELANDER, Presiding Judge
CONCURRING:
PHILIP G. ESPINOSA, Chief Judge
PETER J. ECKERSTROM, Judge
|