STATE OF ARIZONA v. JOSEPH FRANK TYLER
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. JOSEPH FRANK TYLER, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2015-0228 Filed December 1, 2015 THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24. Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County No. CR20144094001 The Honorable Javier Chon-Lopez, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Dean Brault, Pima County Legal Defender By Alex D. Heveri, Assistant Legal Defender, Tucson Counsel for Appellant STATE v. TYLER Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Howard authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Vásquez and Judge Kelly1 concurred. H O W A R D, Judge: ¶1 Appellant Joseph Tyler was charged with one count of aggravated driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI) while a certified ignition interlock device is required and one count of aggravated DUI with an alcohol concentration of .08 or more while a certified ignition interlock device is required. Following a jury trial, Tyler was convicted of the first count, a class four felony. The trial court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed Tyler on probation for two years. Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), avowing she has reviewed the entire record and found no meritorious issue to raise on appeal and asking that we search the record for “error.” In compliance with State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 32, 2 P.3d 89, 97 (App. 1999), counsel has also provided “a detailed factual and procedural history of the case with citations to the record, [so] this court can satisfy itself that counsel has in fact thoroughly reviewed the record.” Tyler has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶2 Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the jury’s verdicts, see State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999), the evidence established that on July 1, 2014, Tyler was required to have a certified ignition interlock device on any vehicle he drove, and that he drove a vehicle without such a device on that date. There was also evidence that within two hours of having driven, Tyler had a blood alcohol concentration of 1The Hon. Virginia C. Kelly, a retired judge of this court, is called back to active duty to serve on this case pursuant to orders of this court and our supreme court. 2 STATE v. TYLER Decision of the Court .271 and showed signs of intoxication. We conclude substantial evidence supported finding the elements necessary for Tyler’s conviction, see A.R.S. § 28-1383(A)(4), and the probation imposed is an authorized disposition, see A.R.S. § 13-902(B)(2). ¶3 Our examination of the record pursuant to Anders has revealed no reversible error or arguable issue warranting further appellate review. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also State v. Fuller, 143 Ariz. 571, 575, 694 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1985) (Anders requires court to search record for fundamental error). Accordingly, we affirm Tyler’s conviction and disposition. 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.
