STATE OF ARIZONA v. PERLA LIZABETH CONTRERAS

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 TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. PERLA LIZABETH CONTRERAS, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FILED BY CLERK OCT 12 2010 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO 2 CA-CR 2010-0078 DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY Cause No. CR20083830 Honorable Terry L. Chandler, Judge AFFIRMED Robert J. Hirsh, Pima County Public Defender By Rebecca A. McLean Tucson Attorneys for Appellant H O W A R D, Chief Judge. ¶1 Appellant Perla Contreras was convicted after a jury trial of aggravated driving while under the influence (DUI) of an intoxicant and aggravated driving with an alcohol concentration (AC) of .08 or greater, with two prior DUI convictions, for offenses committed in December 2005 and July 2007 respectively. The trial court ordered her to serve a mandatory minimum prison term of four months and placed her on probation for five years from the date of her release. ¶2 Counsel has 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), setting forth the relevant facts and procedural history in compliance with State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999). Counsel has avowed that she has been unable to find any arguably meritorious issue to raise on appeal, requesting that this court review the record for fundamental error that was detrimental to Contreras. Contreras has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶3 We have reviewed the record and have found no error that can be characterized as fundamental, prejudicial error. The record contains substantial evidence establishing that Contreras drove her vehicle while under the influence of and impaired by alcohol and that a blood test taken at least three hours after she had driven established her AC was .181, which the state s expert related back to within two hours of the test, estimating it would have been between .201 and .241, and most likely .211, when she was driving. The probationary period imposed was well within statutory limits, see A.R.S. § 13-902(B)(2), and the four-month period of commitment in the Arizona Department of Corrections is the mandatory minimum, see A.R.S. § 28-1383(A)(2), (D)(2). sentence was lawful and imposed in a lawful manner. For these reasons, we affirm. /s/ Joseph W. Howard JOSEPH W. HOWARD, Chief Judge CONCURRING: /s/ J. William Brammer, Jr. J. WILLIAM BRAMMER, JR., Presiding Judge /s/ Philip G. Espinosa PHILIP G. ESPINOSA, Judge 2 The

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.