STATE OF ARIZONA v. SHEILA FRANCES YVONNE STONE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED BY CLERK NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND M AY 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. AUG 13 2009 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. SHEILA FRANCES YVONNE STONE, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 CA-CR 2009-0021 DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY Cause No. CR-20081023 Honorable Howard Hantman, Judge AFFIRMED R. Lamar Couser Tucson Attorney for Appellant V Ã S Q U E Z, Judge. ¶1 Following a jury trial, Sheila Stone was convicted of aggravated driving under the influence of an intoxicant, aggravated driving with an alcohol concentration of .08 or more, and refusing to submit to a required chemical test, all while she had been required to equip any motor vehicle she operated with a certified ignition-interlock device. The trial court found she had two historical prior felony convictions and imposed concurrent, substantially mitigated sentences, the longest of which is six years imprisonment. Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999), raising no arguable issues but asking that we review the entire record for fundamental error. Stone has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶2 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have reviewed the record in its entirety, and we have found no error warranting reversal. Viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the verdict, see State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999), the evidence supports the convictions, and the evidence presented to the trial court supports its finding of historical prior convictions. The sentences the court imposed are within the statutory range authorized for the offenses. Therefore, we affirm Stone s convictions and sentences. ______________________________________ GARYE L. VÃ SQUEZ, Judge CONCURRING: _______________________________________ PETER J. ECKERSTROM, Presiding Judge _______________________________________ J. WILLIAM BRAMMER, JR., Judge 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.
