STATE OF ARIZONA v. FLOYD BENNETT RIOS

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 OCT 19 2012 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. FLOYD BENNETT RIOS, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 CA-CR 2012-0039 DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY Cause No. CR20110512001 Honorable Clark W. Munger, Judge AFFIRMED Isabel G. Garcia, Pima County Legal Defender By Alex D. Heveri K E L L Y, Judge. Tucson Attorneys for Appellant ¶1 After a jury trial, appellant Floyd Rios was convicted of aggravated driving under the influence (DUI) while his license was suspended or revoked, aggravated driving with an alcohol concentration (AC) of .08 or more while his license was suspended or revoked, aggravated DUI having committed or been convicted of two or more prior DUI violations within eighty-four months, and aggravated driving with an AC of .08 or more having committed or been convicted of two or more prior DUI violations. The trial court imposed a concurrent, enhanced, aggravated, six-year sentence on each count. 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 she has reviewed the entire record and was unable to find any meritorious issue to raise on appeal. Counsel has asked us to search the record for reversible error. Rios has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶2 Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdicts, the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the jury s findings of guilt. See State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999). In February 2011, Rios hit a pole while driving with a blood alcohol level, measured in two separate tests at .116 or .120. He failed subsequent field sobriety tests and admitted to police officers that his license was revoked. Evidence further established Rios had committed DUI offenses in February 2002 and January 2004 and had been ordered to serve ninety days as a condition of probation on the first offense and sentenced to three years imprisonment on 2 the second. See A.R.S. § 28-1383(A)(2), (B). We further conclude the sentences imposed are appropriate. See A.R.S. §§ 13-703(B)(2), (I), 28-1381, 28-1383. ¶3 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental, reversible error and have found none. Therefore, Rios s convictions and sentences are affirmed. /s/ Virginia C. Kelly VIRGINIA C. KELLY, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ Garye L. VÃ¡squez GARYE L. VÃ SQUEZ, Presiding Judge /s/ Philip G. Espinosa PHILIP G. ESPINOSA, 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.