STATE OF ARIZONA v. ERICA LEA WHITE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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 FILED BY CLERK JUN -7 2012 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. ERICA LEA WHITE, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 CA-CR 2011-0365 DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY Cause No. CR20072680 Honorable Deborah Bernini, Judge AFFIRMED Lori J. Lefferts, Pima County Public Defender By Robert J. McWhirter V à S Q U E Z, Presiding Judge. Tucson Attorneys for Appellant ¶1 After a jury trial in absentia, appellant Erica White was convicted of aggravated driving with an alcohol concentration of .08 or more while her license was suspended. The trial court sentenced White to a slightly mitigated term of imprisonment of two years and four months. Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999), stating he has reviewed the record and has found no arguably meritorious issue for appeal. 1 Counsel has asked us to search the record for fundamental error. White has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶2 Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, the evidence was sufficient to support the jury s finding of guilt. See State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999). The evidence presented at trial showed a Tucson police officer initiated a traffic stop after observing White speeding and weaving in and out of her lane. Upon speaking to her, he noticed signs of impairment. He then conducted field sobriety tests, which White performed poorly, and administered breath tests, which showed White had a blood alcohol level of .137 and .145. White s driver license was suspended at the time of the stop. We further conclude the sentence imposed is within the statutory limit. See A.R.S. §§ 13-702, 28-1381, 28-1383. 1 Contrary to Clark s requirement, although counsel has detailed the procedural history of the case, he refers only briefly to its factual history. 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d at 96. Nonetheless, his brief assures us that he has thoroughly reviewed the record, id. ¶ 32, and we therefore accept it, but we advise counsel to provide a more detailed factual statement in the future. 2 ¶3 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental, reversible error and have found none. Therefore, White s conviction and sentence are affirmed. /s/ Garye L. Vásquez GARYE L. Và SQUEZ, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ Philip G. Espinosa PHILIP G. ESPINOSA, Judge /s/ Virginia C. Kelly VIRGINIA C. KELLY, Judge 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
