STATE OF ARIZONA v. DARRELL C. NORMAN
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. DARRELL CHARLES NORMAN, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2019-0100 Filed October 7, 2020 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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. 31.19(e). Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County No. CR20180781001 The Honorable Gus Aragon, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Law Offices of Thomas Jacobs, Tucson By Thomas Jacobs Counsel for Appellant STATE v. NORMAN Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Chief Judge Vásquez authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Staring and Judge Brearcliffe concurred. V Á S Q U E Z, Chief Judge: ¶1 After a jury trial, Darrell Norman was convicted of two counts of aggravated driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI), while his license to drive was suspended, revoked, or restricted and DUI with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.08 or more while his license was suspended, revoked, or restricted. The trial court sentenced Norman to enhanced, concurrent, presumptive, ten-year prison terms. ¶2 On appeal, counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating he has reviewed the record but found no “issue that is not frivolous.” Consistent with State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 30 (App. 1999), counsel has provided “a detailed factual and procedural history of the case, with citations to the record,” and has asked this court to review the record for fundamental or reversible error. In a supplemental pro se brief, Norman primarily challenges the jury instruction regarding the presumption of the receipt of notice of revocation of his driver license, and also asserts a related claim of prosecutorial misconduct and a claim his sentences were excessive.1 ¶3 Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury’s verdicts, see State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2 (App. 1999), the evidence is sufficient to support the jury’s findings of guilt. See A.R.S. §§ 28-1381(A)(1), (2), 28-1383(A)(1). The evidence presented at trial showed that in February 2018, a state trooper conducted a traffic stop of the vehicle Norman was driving. Norman, who was on probation, exhibited signs of impairment 1Near the end of his lengthy brief, Norman provides a list, without argument, of several “[o]ther issues this court should review for error,” which we do not consider. See State v. Carver, 160 Ariz. 167, 175 (1989) (“Failure to argue a claim usually constitutes abandonment and waiver of that claim.”). 2 STATE v. NORMAN Decision of the Court while driving and when the trooper administered roadside sobriety tests, was found to have a BAC of 0.189 within two hours of driving. Testimony of an employee of the Motor Vehicle Division established that Norman’s license had been revoked on the date of the incident and that on January 9, 2018, written notice of the revocation had been mailed to him at the most recent address on file. See A.R.S. § 28-3318(E).2 ¶4 Sufficient evidence also supports the trial court’s finding that Norman had two historical prior felony convictions, specifically, for prior aggravated DUI offenses. His sentences are within the statutory range. See A.R.S. §§ 13-105(22)(a)(iv), 13-703(C), (J), 13-708, 28-1383(O)(1). ¶5 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for reversible error, including the issues Norman raises in his supplemental brief, and have found none. Accordingly, we affirm Norman’s convictions and sentences. Section 28-3318(E) provides, “Compliance with the mailing provisions of this section constitutes notice of the . . . [license] revocation . . . for purposes of prosecution under § 28-1383,” and further provides, “The state is not required to prove actual receipt of the notice or actual knowledge of the . . . revocation . . . .” 2 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.
