STATE v. ESCOFFERY
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. DELONNE MATTHEW ESCOFFERY, Appellant. No. 1 CA-CR 15-0368 FILED 3-15-2016 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2013-461828-001 SE The Honorable Brian D. Kaiser, Judge Pro Tempore CONVICTIONS AFFIRMED; SENTENCES AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix By Joseph T. Maziarz Counsel for Appellee Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix By Louise A. Stark Counsel for Appellant STATE v. ESCOFFERY Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Chief Judge Michael J. Brown delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Kent E. Cattani and Judge Margaret H. Downie joined. B R O W N, Chief Judge: ¶1 Delonne Matthew Escoffery was convicted of two counts of aggravated driving under the influence: Count 1, driving with a suspended license while impaired, and Count 2, driving with a suspended license and a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08 or greater. At sentencing, Escoffery admitted having two prior felony convictions, and the trial court imposed mitigated 8-year concurrent terms of imprisonment on each count. Although the transcript of the sentencing hearing reflects that the court imposed a fine and assessments as to Count 1, and expressly stated the “financial obligations as to Count 1” were “concurrent” as to Count 2, the signed sentencing minute entry indicates that the court separately imposed the same fine and assessments as to each count. ¶2 Escoffery argues that the imposition of a fine and assessments as to each count violates double jeopardy protections. The State confesses error, acknowledging that the minute entry conflicts with the trial court’s oral pronouncement and should be corrected. See State v. Wheeler, 108 Ariz. 338, 342 (1972) (“Where there is a conflict between the minute entry and the court’s oral pronouncement as determined from the reporter’s transcript . . . the reporter’s transcript governs over the clerk’s minutes.”). ¶3 Because we accept the State’s confession of error, we correct the minute entry to reflect that the fine and assessments were imposed only as to Count 1. We otherwise affirm the convictions and sentences on both counts. : ama 2
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.
