STATE OF ARIZONA v. NOA SALAZAR
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 OCT 12 2010 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. NOA SALAZAR, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 CA-CR 2010-0112 DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY Cause No. CR20080843 Honorable Clark W. Munger, Judge AFFIRMED Isabel G. Garcia, Pima County Legal Defender By Alex Heveri Tucson Attorneys for Appellant H O W A R D, Chief Judge. ¶1 After a jury trial, appellant Noa Salazar was convicted of aggravated driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI) and driving with an alcohol concentration (AC) of .08 or greater, both while his license was suspended, canceled, revoked, refused or restricted. The trial court found he had three historical prior felony convictions and sentenced him to maximum, twelve-year terms of imprisonment, to be served concurrently. ¶2 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 entire record and found no arguably meritorious 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 error that might warrant relief. ¶3 We conclude substantial evidence supported findings of all the elements necessary for Salazar s convictions. See A.R.S. §§ 28-1381(A)(1),(2); 28-1383(A)(1). In sum, witnesses observed Salazar as he parked his vehicle on the wrong side of the road in a manner that impeded traffic, got out holding and drinking an alcoholic beverage, and urinated in the bushes of a nearby residence. Additional evidence established that, on the same day, Salazar had an estimated AC of .271 within two hours of driving, his license previously had been suspended and revoked, and he had been convicted of three felony offenses committed within the preceding five years. Salazar s sentences were within the range authorized and were imposed in a lawful manner. See A.R.S. §§ 13-105(22)(c); 13-703(C),(J).1 1 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 Salazar s offense. 2 ¶4 In our examination of the record pursuant to Anders, we have found no reversible error and no arguable issue warranting further appellate review. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. Accordingly, we affirm Salazar s convictions and sentences. /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 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.
