State v. Meraz

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. JOEL QUINONEZ MERAZ, Appellant. 1 CA-CR 11-0086 DIVISION ONE FILED: 12/13/2011 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: DLL DEPARTMENT C MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR 2009-167027-001 SE The Honorable Carolyn K. Passamonte, Commissioner AFFIRMED AS CORRECTED Thomas C. Horne, Arizona 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 Stephen R. Collins, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix N O R R I S, Judge ¶1 Joel Quinonez Meraz timely appeals from his convictions and sentences for driving under the influence of alcohol while his driver s license was suspended. After searching the record on appeal and finding no arguable question of law that was not frivolous, Meraz s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), asking this court to search the record for fundamental error. This court granted counsel s motion to allow Meraz to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, but Meraz did not to do so. After reviewing the entire record, we find no fundamental error and, therefore, affirm Meraz s convictions and sentences. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1 ¶2 On June 7, 2009, a highway patrolman noticed Meraz driving a maroon pickup truck slowly in the far-right lane of a Mesa freeway. entrance of As he watched, the truck moved right onto the an exit ramp, but then swerved back onto the freeway, straddling the fog line on the far right of the road for roughly one hundred feet. After pulling the truck over and approaching Meraz and his passenger, the patrolman immediately smell[ed] alcohol coming from the vehicle and saw two open beer cans in the cab. 1 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury s verdict and resolve all reasonable inferences against Meraz. State v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 293, 778 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1989). 2 ¶3 The sobriety tests, several of patrolman and Meraz s intoxicated. The asked the him withdrew to a a responses patrolman nearby sample implied consent law. (2009). A to perform testified the also tests several at trial suggested discovered field Meraz s that he was driver s The patrolman arrested Meraz, and sheriff s of to patrolman license had been suspended. took Meraz office Meraz s blood, where another pursuant to officer Arizona s See Ariz. Rev. Stat. ( A.R.S. ) § 28-1321 criminalist later determined that Meraz s blood alcohol concentration at the time it was withdrawn was .184, well above the legal limit of .08. See A.R.S. § 28-1381(A)(2) (2008). ¶4 A grand jury indicted Meraz on two counts of aggravated driving or actual physical control while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs, a class 4 felony. See A.R.S. §§ 28-1381(A)(1)-(2), -1383(A)(1) (2008). trial, the jury found Meraz guilty of both counts. After a The superior court sentenced Meraz to four months in prison and three years of probation following his release from prison, with 34 days of presentence incarceration credit. DISCUSSION ¶5 We have reviewed the entire record for reversible error and find none. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. a Meraz received fair trial. 3 He was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings and was present at all critical stages. ¶6 The evidence presented at trial was substantial and supports the verdicts. members and the The jury was properly comprised of eight court properly instructed the jury on the elements of the charges, Meraz s presumption of innocence, the State s burden verdict. The of proof, superior and the court necessity received of and a unanimous considered a presentence report, Meraz was given an opportunity to speak at sentencing, and his sentences were acceptable sentences for his offenses. within the range of A.R.S. § 28-1383(L)(1), A.R.S. § 13-702(D) (2009). ¶7 We note, however, the superior court s sentencing minute entry filed on January 19, 2011, mistakenly states Meraz waived trial and entered a plea of guilty. We hereby correct the sentencing minute entry to reflect Meraz pled not guilty, but was found guilty by the jury after a trial. CONCLUSION ¶8 We decline to order briefing and affirm Meraz s convictions and sentences as corrected. ¶9 After the filing of this decision, defense counsel s obligations pertaining to Meraz s representation in this appeal have ended. Defense counsel need do no more than inform Meraz of the outcome of this appeal and his future options, unless, 4 upon review, counsel finds an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984). ¶10 Meraz has 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he wishes, with an in propria persona petition for review. On the court s own motion, we also grant Meraz 30 days from the date of this decision to file an in propria persona motion for reconsideration. __/s/______________________ PATRICIA K. NORRIS, Judge CONCURRING: __/s/___ ___________________ _____ MICHAEL J. BROWN, Presiding Judge __/s/______________________ _____ PHILIP HALL, Judge 5 _____

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.