 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Thompson9/2/2004
This Court has jurisdiction of this criminal appeal pursuant to the Arizona Constitution Article VI, Section 16, and A.R.S. Section 12-124(A).
This case has been under advisement since the time of oral argument. This decision is made within 60 days as required by Rule 9 .9, Maricopa County Superior Court Local Rules of Practice. This Court has considered and reviewed the record of the proceedings from the Glendale Justice Court, and the memoranda and arguments submitted by counsel in this case.
Appellant, William Joseph Thompson, appeals from his conviction of the crime of Extreme DUI, a class 1 misdemeanor offense in violation of A.R.S. Section 28-1382(A). Thompson's case was tried to the court without a jury on August 1, 2003, based upon stipulated facts and evidence. Thompson was found guilty, and sentenced on September 10, 2003 to pay a fine and serve the mandatory jail-time. Thompson has filed a timely Notice of Appeal in this case.
The record reflects that Thompson was stopped by Department of Public Safety Officer Brett on December 5, 2002 at 9:10 p.m., at Milepost 205 on Interstate 17. [FN1] Officer Brett's attention was drawn to the Appellant's vehicle because of its high speed and the fact that he was weaving back and forth within his lane. Officer Brett commenced a DUI investigation after making a traffic stop, and smelling the strong odor of alcohol from Appellant's person, and after Appellant admitted that he had had several glasses of wine. Officer Brett explained that "for reasons of safety" he did not perform any field sobriety tests upon Appellant, because Appellant could not stand up unassisted. [FN2] The results of the two Intoxilyzer tests revealed blood alcohol contents of .198 and .186, respectively.
FN1. The record submitted to this court includes the stipulated evidence submitted to the trial judge and that evidence includes the departmental reports of Officer Brett, his narrative report, the alcohol influence report, and the intoxilyzer breath-test readings of .198 and . 186.
FN2. Record on Appeal, Arizona Department of Public Safety Offense Report 2002-084415, at pages 1-2.
The first issue raised by the Appellant is his contention that the trial judge erred in denying his motion to continue the trial date of August 1, 2003. Citing Rule 8.5(G), Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, Appellant contends that the trial court must continue a trial when "delay is indispensable to the interests of justice." Appellant had filed a Motion to Continue the trial of August 1, 2003, for the reason that its expert witness, Chester Flaxmayer, was unavailable on the trial date due to his attendance at a seminar out of state. The trial court denied this motion to continue. Appellant's trial counsel reurged the motion to continue at the time scheduled for trial on August 1, 2003. The trial judge denied the renewed motion.
It is appropriate that this Court review the trial court's denial of the continuance in this case, in the context of the case's history before the trial court. [FN3] The case history reveals that the case was greater than 200 days old (as of August 1, 2003), and that three previous motions to continue had been granted at the request of Appellant's trial counsel. The age of the case and the number of the prior motions to continue were cited by the trial judge at the time he denied Appellant's renewed motion to continue the trial on August 1, 2003. [FN4] The trial judge (the Honorable Quentin V. Tolby, Glendale Justice of the Peace) succinctly and correctly concluded, when he denied Appellant's renewed Motion to Continue:
FN3. State v. Lamar, 205 Ariz. 431, 437, 72 P.3d 831, 837 (2003); State v. Barreras, 181 Ariz. 516, 892 P.2d 852 (1995); State v. Amaya-Ruiz, 166 Ariz. 152, 800 P.2d
Page 1 2 3 Arizona DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|