STATE v. MAYS

 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. VINCENT CHAYTON MAYS, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) DIVISION ONE FILED: 05/02/2013 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: GH 1 CA-CR 12-0109 DEPARTMENT C MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR2010-108958-001 The Honorable Phemonia L. Miller, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General by Joseph T. Maziarz, Acting Chief Counsel, Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender by Cory Engle, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix T H U M M A, Judge ¶1 This is a timely appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969). Counsel for Mays asks this court to search the record for fundamental error. Mays was given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief but has not done so. After reviewing the record, finding no error, Mays convictions and sentences are affirmed. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1 ¶2 On April 6, 2008, Mays was driving in Phoenix when he ran into the vehicle in front of him. Phoenix Police Officer Sweeney witnessed the collision and saw Mays exit his vehicle. As Officer Sweeney spoke with Mays, he noticed that Mays eyes were bloodshot and watery and that Mays smelled of alcohol. Mays also exhibited 6 of 6 cues of impairment when given a horizontal gaze nystagmus test. A breathalyzer test administered one hour after the collision showed Mays had a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.136. ¶3 Mays felonies: actual (1) control was arrested aggravated of a and driving vehicle charged under while 1 with the under two Class influence the 4 (DUI), influence of This court views the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the trial court s judgment and resolves all reasonable inferences against Mays. State v. Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 897, 898 (App. 1998). 2 intoxicating liquor, while his driving privileges were cancelled, and (2) aggravated DUI, actual control of a vehicle with a BAC of .08 or more in his body within 2 hours of the time of driving, while his driving privileges were cancelled. ¶4 At trial, the State presented evidence that although Mays obtained an Arizona driver s license in January 2006, his Arizona driving privileges were cancelled the next month due to suspension of his driver s licenses in other states. The State also presented evidence that Mays was notified of the cancellation of his driving privileges by mail to his address of record, that Mays never reinstated his driving privileges and therefore that Mays did not have a valid Arizona driver s license at the time of the collision and his arrest. ¶5 The jury found Mays guilty on both counts. Mays was sentenced on each count to 4 months incarceration and 2 years of probation, with the sentences to run concurrently. Mays timely appealed his convictions and resulting sentences. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) sections 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and -4033(A)(1). 2 2 Absent material revisions after the relevant dates, statutes cited refer to the current version unless otherwise indicated. 3 DISCUSSION ¶6 Counsel diligent search question of resulting for of law. Mays advised this court the entire record, she This court reviews Mays sentences for fundamental that found no after arguable convictions error. See a and State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 568, ¶ 22, 115 P.3d 601, 608 (2005). A review of counsel s brief and a full review of the record reveals no reversible error. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. The record shows that Mays was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings and was present at all critical stages. The evidence presented at trial was substantial and supports the verdicts. All of the proceedings appear to have been conducted in compliance with applicable law and procedural rules, and the sentences imposed were within the statutory limits. CONCLUSION ¶7 Mays convictions and sentences are affirmed. After this decision is filed, counsel s obligation to represent Mays in this appeal has ended. Counsel must only inform Mays of the status of the appeal and Mays future options, unless counsel identifies 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). Mays shall have 4 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if desired, with a pro se motion for reconsideration or petition for review. ___________/S/____________________ SAMUEL A. THUMMA, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: ________/S/__________________ MICHAEL J. BROWN, Judge ________/S/__________________ DIANE M. JOHNSEN, 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.