STATE OF ARIZONA v. JEFFREY ANDREW KRASSOW
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 MAR 28 2013 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. JEFFREY ANDREW KRASSOW, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 CA-CR 2012-0380 DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY Cause No. CR20111203001 Honorable Clark W. Munger, Judge Honorable Scott Rash, Judge AFFIRMED Lori J. Lefferts, Pima County Public Defender By Lisa M. Hise Tucson Attorneys for Appellant H O W A R D, Chief Judge. ¶1 Appellant Jeffrey Krassow was convicted after a jury trial, held in his absence, of aggravated driving under the influence of alcohol and aggravated driving with an alcohol concentration (AC) of .08 or greater, both while his driver license was suspended, canceled, or revoked. After finding Krassow had three historical felony convictions, the trial court sentenced him to concurrent, slightly mitigated nine-year prison terms. 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), stating she has reviewed the record but found no arguable legal issues to raise on appeal and asking us to review the record for error. Krassow has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶2 We view the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the jury s verdicts. See State v. Haight-Gyuro, 218 Ariz. 356, ¶ 2, 186 P.3d 33, 34 (App. 2008). In August 2010, Krassow was arrested after driving his truck erratically repeatedly peeling out and rushing towards [a] house with his truck while screaming profanity. Krassow admitted drinking alcohol and failed three field sobriety tests, including a horizontal gaze nystagmus test; testing of blood sample taken from Krassow showed he had an AC of .098. And records from the Motor Vehicle Department (MVD) demonstrated Krassow s license had been suspended on the date of the incident and notices of that suspension had been mailed to the address he had provided MVD. This evidence is sufficient to support his convictions. See A.R.S. §§ 28-1381(A)(1), (2); 281383(A)(1); see also A.R.S. §§ 28-448(A) (licensee must notify MVD of address change within ten days of moving); 28-3318(D), (E) (notice of suspension complete upon mailing); State v. Church, 175 Ariz. 104, 108, 854 P.2d 137, 141 (App. 1993) (licensee presumed to have received notice of suspension upon proof notice was mailed). ¶3 The record supports the trial court s finding that Krassow voluntarily absented himself from trial. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 9.1. And Krassow s sentences were 2 within the prescribed statutory range and imposed lawfully. See A.R.S. §§ 13-703(C), (D), (J); 28-1383(L)(1). ¶4 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental, reversible error and found none.1 See State v. Fuller, 143 Ariz. 571, 575, 694 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1985) (Anders requires court to search record for fundamental error). Accordingly, Krassow s convictions and sentences are affirmed. /s/ Joseph W. Howard JOSEPH W. HOWARD, Chief Judge CONCURRING: /s/ Peter J. Eckerstrom PETER J. ECKERSTROM, Presiding Judge /s/ Michael Miller MICHAEL MILLER, Judge 1 Counsel observes that evidence concerning Krassow s possible drug use was improperly admitted in violation of the trial court s preclusion order, but that trial counsel did not request a mistrial or curative instruction. She also notes that trial counsel did not object to testimony that Krassow had said at one point, [j]ust because I said I was going to kill you, doesn t mean I m going to kill you, and suggests that testimony was arguably more prejudicial than probative. We agree with counsel that, because trial counsel did not object below, even assuming error exists, it is not fundamental, prejudicial error requiring reversal. See State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, ¶¶ 19-20, 115 P.3d 601, 607 (2005) (failure to object to alleged error in trial court results in forfeiture of review for all but fundamental error). 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.
