STATE OF ARIZONA v. TIMOTHY MICHAEL AGUIRRE

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. TIMOTHY MICHAEL AGUIRRE, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2019-0157 Filed May 28, 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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. CR20183927001 The Honorable John Hinderaker, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL James Fullin, Pima County Legal Defender By Jeffrey Kautenburger, Assistant Legal Defender, Tucson Counsel for Appellant STATE v. AGUIRRE Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Eckerstrom authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Eppich and Judge Espinosa concurred. E C K E R S T R O M, Judge: ¶1 After a jury trial, appellant Timothy Aguirre was convicted of aggravated driving with an illegal drug or its metabolite while his license was suspended and revoked. The trial court sentenced him to an enhanced, minimum prison term of eight years. Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530 (App. 1999), stating he has reviewed the record and “has found no tenable issue to raise on appeal.” Counsel has asked us to search the record for fundamental error. Aguirre has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶2 Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, see State v. Delgado, 232 Ariz. 182, ¶ 2 (App. 2013), the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding of guilt, see A.R.S. §§ 13-3401(6)(c)(xxxviii), 28-1381(A)(1), 28-1383(A)(3). The evidence presented at trial showed that Aguirre, who had two prior convictions for aggravated driving under the influence and whose driver license was suspended and revoked, was stopped driving a truck with methamphetamine in his blood. We further conclude the sentence imposed is within the statutory limit. See A.R.S. §§ 13-703(J), 28-1383(O)(1). ¶3 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental, reversible error and have found none. Therefore, Aguirre’s conviction and sentence are affirmed. 2

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.