NOTICE:
THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED
EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES.
See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c);
Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF ARIZONA
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF ARIZONA,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appellee,
v.
SHAWN PATRICK KELLER,
Appellant.
DIVISION ONE
FILED: 06/28/2011
RUTH A. WILLINGHAM,
CLERK
BY: DLL
1 CA-CR 10-0433
DEPARTMENT E
MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not for Publication –
Rule 111, Rules of the
Arizona Supreme Court)
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
Cause No. CR2009-138287-001DT
The Honorable Carolyn K. Passamonte, Judge Pro Tempore
AFFIRMED
Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General
by
Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel,
Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section
Attorneys for Appellee
Phoenix
James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender
by
Terry J. Reid, Deputy Public Defender
Attorneys for Appellant
Phoenix
P O R T L E Y, Judge
¶1
738
This is an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
(1967)
and
State
v.
Leon,
104
Ariz.
297,
451
P.2d
878
(1969).
Counsel for Defendant Shawn Patrick Keller has advised
us that, after searching the entire record, she has been unable
to discover any arguable questions of law, and has filed a brief
requesting
us
to
conduct
an
Anders
review
of
the
record.
Defendant was given an opportunity to file a supplemental brief,
and has not filed one.
FACTS 1
¶2
Defendant
drove
his
truck
into
a
shopping
center
parking lot at 1:00 a.m. on May 23, 2008, and shut off the
lights.
Officer Buchanan, who was parked in the lot writing
police reports, became suspicious because the shopping center
businesses were closed.
As Buchanan drove his patrol car toward
Defendant’s truck, Defendant drove out of the parking lot.
¶3
Buchanan followed him and noticed that Defendant made
several wide turns, swerved and “accelerated at a high rate of
speed.”
Defendant eventually parked the truck on a residential
street.
Buchanan pulled up behind the truck and saw Defendant
leaning against the truck’s front bumper.
¶4
Buchanan approached Defendant and noticed that he had
bloodshot and watery eyes, had “a strong odor of intoxicating
liquor
from
his
[mouth],”
and
had
slurred
speech.
Buchanan
administered field sobriety tests and determined that Defendant
1
We review the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining
the verdict. See State v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 293, 778 P.2d
1185, 1189 (1989).
2
was impaired.
Defendant later admitted that he had consumed six
to eight alcoholic drinks.
¶5
Defendant was arrested for suspicion of driving under
the influence (“DUI”) and was taken to the police station where
he
agreed
to
breathalyzer
tests.
His
blood-alcohol
concentration was recorded to be 0.202 and 0.198 percent.
¶6
Defendant was subsequently indicted on two counts of
aggravated DUI. 2
charged.
A jury heard the evidence, and convicted him as
Defendant received a suspended sentence with two years
of supervised probation on one count, and was ordered to serve
four
months
in
prison
with
30
days
credit
for
presentence
incarceration on the second count.
¶7
We
have
jurisdiction
over
this
appeal
pursuant
to
Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and Arizona
Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) sections 12-120.21(A)(1) (2003), 134031, and -4033(A)(1) (2010).
DISCUSSION
¶8
We have read and considered counsel’s brief, and have
searched the entire record for reversible error.
Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881.
¶9
See Leon, 104
We find none.
All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance
with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.
2
The record, as
Defendant was indicted for aggravated DUI because his driver’s
license was suspended. See A.R.S. § 28-3473(A) (Supp. 2010).
3
presented, reveals that Defendant was represented by counsel at
all
stages
of
the
proceedings,
and
the
sentence
imposed
was
within the statutory limits.
CONCLUSION
¶10
After
this
to
represent
obligation
decision
has
Defendant
been
in
filed,
this
appeal
counsel’s
has
ended.
Counsel need do no more than inform Defendant of the status of
the
appeal
review
and
reveals
Defendant’s
an
issue
future
options,
appropriate
for
unless
submission
Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review.
Shattuck,
140
Ariz.
582,
585,
684
P.2d
counsel’s
to
the
See State v.
154,
157
(1984).
Defendant can, if desired, file a motion for reconsideration or
petition for review pursuant to the Arizona Rules of Criminal
Procedure.
¶11
Accordingly,
we
affirm
Defendant’s
convictions
sentences.
/s/
________________________________
MAURICE PORTLEY, Presiding Judge
CONCURRING:
/s/
____________________________
LAWRENCE F. WINTHROP Judge
/s/
____________________________
SHELDON H. WEISBERG, Judge
4
and
