STATE v. WHITE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. JAMESON MARCUS WHITE, Appellant. No. 1 CA-CR 14-0485 FILED 8-20-2015 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2012-006355-001 The Honorable Phemonia L. Miller, Commissioner AFFIRMED COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix By Joseph T. Maziarz Counsel for Appellee Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix By Jeffrey L. Force Counsel for Appellant STATE v. WHITE Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Jon W. Thompson delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Margaret H. Downie and Judge Kenton D. Jones joined. T H O M P S O N, Judge: ¶1 Jameson Marcus White (defendant) timely appeals his convictions and sentences for one count of aggravated driving under the influence and one count of aggravated driving with a BAC of .08% or more with a suspended license. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), counsel for defendant has advised us that, after searching the entire record, he has been unable to discover any arguable questions of law and has filed a brief requesting this court to conduct an Anders review of the record. Defendant has been afforded an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propia persona, and he has not done so. ¶2 At approximately midnight on December 3, 2011, a Phoenix police officer observed defendant driving a vehicle the wrong way down a one-way street, without the car’s headlights on. After the officer stopped Defendant, he noticed that defendant had watery, bloodshot eyes and smelled of alcohol. Defendant admitted to drinking beer that night and was arrested; a blood draw later revealed that defendant had a .203% blood alcohol concentration (BAC). At the time of defendant’s arrest, his driving privileges had been suspended. ¶3 The State charged defendant with one count of aggravated driving under the influence, and one count of aggravated driving with a BAC of .08% or more with a suspended license, both class four felonies. After trial, the jury found defendant guilty on both counts. The trial court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed defendant on two years supervised probation to begin upon his release from prison after serving the mandatory four months. ¶4 We have read and considered defendant’s Anders brief, and we 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 of Criminal Procedure, and the sentence imposed was within the statutory limits. Pursuant to State 2 STATE v. WHITE Decision of the Court v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984), counsel’s obligations in this appeal are at an end. Defendant has thirty days from the date of this decision in which to proceed, if he so desires, with an in propria persona motion for reconsideration or petition for review. : ama 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.
