STATE OF ARIZONA v. ALBERT LEAL
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 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. ALBERT LEAL, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FILED BY CLERK OCT 29 2012 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO 2 CA-CR 2012-0163 DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY Cause No. CR20110237001 Honorable Javier Chon-Lopez, Judge AFFIRMED Lori J. Lefferts, Pima County Public Defender By Rebecca A. McLean V à S Q U E Z, Presiding Judge. Tucson Attorneys for Appellant ¶1 After a jury trial, appellant Albert Leal was convicted of unlawful flight from a pursuing law enforcement vehicle and placed on a two-year period of probation. Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), avowing she has reviewed the record and found no arguably meritorious issue to raise on appeal. In compliance with State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 32, 2 P.3d 89, 97 (App. 1999), counsel has also provided a detailed factual and procedural history of the case with citations to the record, [so] this court can satisfy itself that counsel has in fact thoroughly reviewed the record. Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have reviewed the record in its entirety and are satisfied it supports counsel s recitation of the facts. Leal has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶2 Viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the jury s verdict, see State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999), the evidence established that a University of Arizona Police Department (UAPD) corporal was in a marked police vehicle when she attempted to stop Leal s vehicle for traffic violations. Leal stopped briefly, but then took off, eventually reaching a speed of about seventy miles per hour. Another UAPD officer who had been at the attempted traffic stop identified Leal as the driver of the vehicle. ¶3 We conclude substantial evidence supported findings of all the elements necessary for Leal s conviction, see A.R.S. § 28-622.01, and the term of probation imposed was authorized by statute, see A.R.S. § 13-902(A)(4). In our examination of the record pursuant to Anders, we have found no reversible error and no arguable issue 2 warranting further appellate review. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. Accordingly, we affirm Leal s conviction and disposition. /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.
