STATE OF ARIZONA v. JOSHUA DAVID STAUFFER
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. JOSHUA DAVID STAUFFER, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2016-0230 Filed ________ 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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 Gila County No. S0400CR201300335 The Honorable Gary V. Scales, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED COUNSEL Emily Danies, Tucson Counsel for Appellant STATE v. STAUFFER Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Miller authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Staring and Judge Espinosa concurred. M I L L E R, Judge: ¶1 After a jury trial Joshua Stauffer was convicted of aggravated driving under the influence (DUI) while required to equip his motor vehicle with an ignition interlock device and the following domestic violence misdemeanor offenses: assault, preventing the use of a telephone during an emergency, disorderly conduct, and two counts of threatening or intimidating. The trial court sentenced him to a three-year prison term for DUI, and to time served for the misdemeanor offenses. ¶2 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), asserting she has reviewed the record thoroughly but found no arguable issue 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 fundamental error. Stauffer has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶3 Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury’s verdicts, see State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999), sufficient evidence supports them here. In June 2013, Stauffer, who was required to use an ignition interlock device in his vehicle, drove to his father’s home and, during an argument, threatened his father and sister, poked his father in the head, and slapped a telephone out of his father’s hand while he was attempting to call 9-1-1, subsequently failed field sobriety tests, and breath testing showed he had an alcohol concentration of .144 and .142. See A.R.S. §§ 13-1202(A)(1), 132 STATE v. STAUFFER Decision of the Court 1203(A)(3), 13-2904(A)(1), 13-2915(A)(3), 13-3601(A)(4), 281383(A)(4). Sufficient evidence supports the trial court’s finding of Stauffer’s historical prior felony conviction. See A.R.S. § 13105(22)(a)(iv). His sentences are within the statutory range and were properly imposed. See A.R.S. §§ 13-703(B), (I), 28-1383(M)(1). ¶4 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental error and found none. See State v. Fuller, 143 Ariz. 571, 575, 694 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1985). Accordingly, we affirm Stauffer’s convictions and sentences. 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.
