STATE OF ARIZONA v. RAYMOND KEITH WALKER
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 FILED BY CLERK NOV 18 2010 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. RAYMOND KEITH WALKER, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 CA-CR 2010-0109 DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY Cause No. CR20092273001 Honorable John S. Leonardo, Judge AFFIRMED Harriette P. Levitt Tucson Attorney for Appellant V à S Q U E Z, Presiding Judge. ¶1 After a jury trial, appellant Raymond Walker was convicted of aggravated driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI) and aggravated driving with an alcohol concentration (AC) of .08 or greater, both while his license was suspended, revoked, or in violation of a restriction. The trial court found he had two historical prior felony convictions; sentenced him to concurrent, mitigated prison terms of eight years on each conviction; and imposed various fines and other assessments. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999), avowing she has reviewed the record and has found no arguable issues [to raise] on appeal. Consistent with Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 32, 2 P.3d at 97, she has provided a detailed factual and procedural history of the case with citations to the record and asks this court to search the record for any reversible error. Walker has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶2 We have reviewed the record as requested and have found no error that could be characterized as fundamental and prejudicial.1 See State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, ¶¶ 19-20, 115 P.3d 601, 607 (2005). The record contains substantial evidence supporting the findings of all the elements necessary for Walker s convictions. See A.R.S. §§ 28-1381(A)(1),(2); 28-1383(A)(1). Specifically, the evidence established a Pima County Sheriff s deputy found Walker either asleep or passed out in the driver s seat of a vehicle that was parked on the side of the roadway, partially blocking one lane of traffic; the keys were in the ignition, the engine was off, and one directional signal was activated. Walker subsequently showed signs of being highly intoxicated, and although he was uncooperative, belligerent, and physically aggressive and resistant, a sample of his blood was obtained pursuant to a warrant. His AC was determined to be .250. 1 We note that, based on the record before us and this court s recent decision in State v. Rogers, No. 2 CA-CR 2009-0277, ___ WL ____ (Ariz. Ct. App. Nov.16, 2010), it appears the trial court miscalculated the mandatory surcharge owed under A.R.S. § 16954(C), ordering him to pay a surcharge of $630, rather than $675.75. But as we stated in Rogers, because the state did not file a cross-appeal, we will not correct this error, which inures to Walker s benefit. Rogers, ¶ 9. 2 Additionally, Walker s mitigated prison terms were within the applicable ¶3 statutory parameters and were imposed in a lawful manner. See A.R.S. §§ 13-105(22)(c); 13-703(C), (J).2 Therefore, finding no error warranting relief of any kind and no issue requiring further review, we affirm the convictions and the sentences imposed. /s/ Garye L. Vásquez GARYE L. Và SQUEZ, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ Peter J. Eckerstrom PETER J. ECKERSTROM, Judge /s/ Virginia C. Kelly VIRGINIA C. KELLY, Judge 2 The Arizona criminal sentencing code has been renumbered, effective from and after December 31, 2008. See 2008 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 301, §§ 1-120. For ease of reference and because no changes in the statutes are material to the issues in this case, see id. § 119, we refer in this decision to the current section numbers rather than those in effect at the time of Walker s offenses. 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.
