No. 2 CA-CR 2018-0307
COUNSEL James Fullin, Pima County Legal Defender By Jeffrey Kautenburger, Assistant Legal Defender, Tucson Counsel for Appellant
THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.19(e). Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County
The Honorable Deborah Bernini, Judge
COUNSEL James Fullin, Pima County Legal Defender
By Jeffrey Kautenburger, Assistant Legal Defender, Tucson
Counsel for Appellant
Presiding Judge Eppich authored the decision of the Court, in which Chief Judge Eckerstrom and Judge Espinosa concurred. EPPICH, Judge:
¶1 Following a jury trial, appellant Christian Holliman was convicted of aggravated driving while under the influence (DUI) while his license was suspended, revoked or restricted, aggravated driving with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .08 or more while his license was suspended, revoked or restricted, aggravated DUI having committed or been convicted of two or more prior DUI violations, and aggravated driving with a BAC of .08 or more having committed or been convicted of two or more prior DUI violations. The trial court suspended the imposition of sentence, and ordered Holliman to spend four months in the Arizona Department of Corrections as a condition of his probation, followed by concurrent five-year terms of probation.
The trial court granted the state's request to dismiss an additional count of misdemeanor criminal damage.
¶2 Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530 (App. 1999), stating he has reviewed the record and has been unable to find any "tenable issue to raise on appeal" and asking us to search the record for "any potential error." Consistent with Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 32, he has provided "a detailed factual and procedural history of the case with citations to the record." Holliman has not filed a supplemental brief.
¶3 Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdicts, see State v. Delgado, 232 Ariz. 182, ¶ 2 (App. 2013), the evidence is sufficient to support the jury's findings of guilt, see A.R.S. § 28-1383(A)(1), (2), (D), (O)(1). The evidence presented at trial showed that in November 2017, a Tucson Police Officer stopped the vehicle Holliman was driving for a traffic violation; Holliman, whose driver license was revoked and suspended, also hit a parked car as he pulled over for the stop. The officer conducted a DUI investigation, during which he noted that Holliman "swayed while he was walking" and exhibited six out of six cues of alcohol impairment on the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test; a blood test established Holliman's BAC was 0.157 within two hours of driving. Holliman had been convicted of two prior DUI offenses, one in 2016 and the other in 2017. We further conclude the terms of probation are within the statutory range and were imposed in a lawful manner. See A.R.S. § 13-902(B)(2).
We cite the current version of the statutes in this decision, as they have not changed in relevant part since Holliman committed his offenses. --------
¶4 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental, reversible error and have found none. Accordingly, we affirm Holliman's convictions and the terms of probation.