State v. Oakry
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 ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appellee, v. VAUGHN ULYSSES OAKRY, Appellant. DIVISION ONE FILED: 04-08-2010 PHILIP G. URRY,CLERK BY: GH No. 1 CA-CR 08-0488 DEPARTMENT D MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for PublicationRule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court of Maricopa County Cause No. CR2005-009570-001 DT The Honorable Carolyn K. Passamonte, Judge Pro Tem AFFIRMED Terry Goddard, Attorney General By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals Section Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender By Joel M. Glynn, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix T H O M P S O N, Judge ¶1 This case comes to us as an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1978), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 1 297, 451 P.2d (defendant) 878 has (1969). advised Counsel us that, for after Vaughn Ulysses searching the Oakry entire record, he has been unable to discover any arguable questions of law and has Anders review filed of a the brief requesting record. Defendant this court conduct an been afforded an has opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propia persona, and he has not done so. ¶2 A Department of Public Safety officer on an unrelated investigation in a residential neighborhood observed defendant s car exceeding the speed limit. The officer initiated a traffic stop and noted that defendant had slow response times, watery and bloodshot eyes, and a moderate odor of alcohol. The officer placed defendant under arrest. Another officer performed a Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test on defendant, and defendant exhibited six out of six cues on the test, consistent with impairment due to alcohol intoxication. ¶3 Defendant was transported to a police DUI processing van, received his Miranda 1 rights, and was interviewed by another officer. During the interview, the officer asked defendant to rate his level of intoxication at the time he was driving on a scale from zero to ten, and defendant rated himself at five. Following the interview, another officer administered two breath tests to defendant, one indicating defendant s breath alcohol 1 See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 2 concentration to be 0.110 and the other indicating 0.111. Subsequent quality assurance tests on the machine indicated that it was working properly at the time of these tests. ¶4 Defendant s license had been suspended previously, with notice to defendant personally served by an officer nearly six years prior to this arrest and three additional orders of suspension mailed to defendant s most recent address on file with the Motor Vehicles Division. The suspensions were still in effect on the night defendant was arrested. ¶5 Defendant was charged with one count of Aggravated Driving or Actual Physical Control While Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor or Drugs (Impaired/License Suspended), a class 4 felony, and one count of Aggravated Driving or Actual Physical Control While Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor or Drugs (Alcohol Level/License Suspended), a class 4 felony. Defendant was convicted after a jury trial and sentenced on each count to three years of probation and four months of incarceration with credit for sixty-one days of pre-sentence incarceration; sentences to run concurrently. Defendant timely appealed. ¶6 We have read and considered counsel s brief and have searched the entire record for reversible error. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. We find none. All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules 3 of Criminal Procedure. So far as the record reveals, defendant was adequately represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, and the sentence imposed was within the statutory limits. Pursuant to State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984), defendant s counsel s obligations in this appeal are at an end. ¶7 We affirm the convictions and sentences. /s/ ______________________ JON W. THOMPSON, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ___________________________________ PATRICIA A. OROZCO, Presiding Judge /s/ ___________________________________ DIANE M. JOHNSEN, Judge 4
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.
