STATE v. NESKOVICH
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 DIVISION ONE FILED: 10/18/2012 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: sls IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. ALEX NESKOVICH, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 1 CA-CR 11-0786 DEPARTMENT D MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Navajo County Cause No. S0900CR201100220 The Honorable John N. Lamb, Judge AFFIRMED Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel, Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee Christian C. Ackerley Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix Lakeside G E M M I L L, Judge ¶1 probation Alex Neskovich appeals from his convictions for aggravated driving under the influence of and an intoxicating liquor and aggravated driving with a blood alcohol content of 0.08% or more. Both counts are class 4 felonies. Neskovich s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), stating that he has searched the record and found no arguable question of law and requesting that this court examine the record for reversible error. Neskovich was afforded the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief but did not do so. See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d 89, 96 (App. 1999). For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 We therefrom view the in the light convictions. 668, 669 Neskovich facts and most all reasonable favorable to sustaining the State v. Powers, 200 Ariz. 123, 124, ¶ 2, 23 P.3d (App. 2001). stipulated Prior to a to blood his one alcohol within two hours of driving on May 5, 2009. evidence inferences that the Motor Vehicle day jury content of trial, 0.151% The State produced Department ( MVD ), approximately a month prior to May 5, 2009, had mailed Neskovich a notice of suspended license to the mailing address Neskovich had provided the MVD. Although Neskovich denied knowing that his license had been suspended and denied receipt of the mailed notice of suspension, the jury found Neskovich guilty on both 2 counts. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and imposed a four year period of probation which included a term of requiring Neskovich be incarcerated for 120 days in the Arizona Department of Corrections, with credit for 23 days served. DISCUSSION ¶3 Having considered defense counsel s brief and examined the record for reversible error, see Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881, we find none. The evidence presented supports the convictions, and the imposition of probation falls within the range permitted by law. As far as the record reveals, Neskovich was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, and these proceedings were conducted in compliance with his constitutional and statutory rights and the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. ¶4 684 Pursuant to State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, P.2d appeal 154, have Neskovich 156-57 of the counsel s Counsel ended. (1984), need disposition of do the obligations no more appeal in this than and inform his future options, unless counsel s review reveals an issue appropriate for submission review. to Neskovich the Arizona has Supreme thirty days Court from by the petition date of for this decision in which to proceed, if he desires, with a pro se motion for reconsideration or petition for review. 3 CONCLUSION ¶5 The convictions and imposition of probation are affirmed. ___/s/____________________________ JOHN C. GEMMILL, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: ____/s/__________________________ PETER B. SWANN, Judge ____/s/__________________________ ANDREW W. GOULD, 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.
