STATE OF ARIZONA v. DANNY RAY KEE, JR.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. DANNY RAY KEE JR., Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2019-0294 Filed August 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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. CR20184286001 The Honorable James E. Marner, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL James Fullin, Pima County Legal Defender By Alex D. Heveri, Assistant Legal Defender, Tucson Counsel for Appellant STATE v. KEE Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Staring authored the decision of the Court, in which Chief Judge Vásquez and Judge Brearcliffe concurred. S T A R I N G, Presiding Judge: ¶1 After a jury trial held in his absence, Danny Kee Jr. was convicted of aggravated driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI) while his license was suspended, revoked, or restricted; aggravated driving with an illegal drug or its metabolite in his body while his license was suspended, revoked, or restricted; aggravated DUI having committed or been convicted of two or more prior DUI violations within eighty-four months; and aggravated driving with an illegal drug or its metabolite in his body having committed or been convicted of two or more prior DUI violations within eighty-four months. The trial court sentenced him to partially mitigated, concurrent prison terms of seven years each. ¶2 On appeal, counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating she has “reviewed the entire record and was unable to find any meritorious issue to raise.” 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 us to search the record for reversible error. Kee has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶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 here, see A.R.S. §§ 13-3401, 28-1381(A)(1), (3), 28-1383(A)(1), (2). In March 2018, when officers pulled over Kee for making a wide left turn, he had bloodshot, watery eyes and slurred speech, and he admitted to using marijuana—without a medical card—and methamphetamine. Kee exhibited signs of intoxication and admitted that his license had been suspended. Officers confirmed that his license was suspended; testing of Kee’s blood showed the presence of THC, 1 the active ingredient of 1Tetrahydrocannabinol. 2 STATE v. KEE Decision of the Court marijuana, and methamphetamine; and Kee had at least two prior DUI convictions within eighty-four months of the current offense. ¶4 The record also supports the trial court’s finding that Kee had two historical prior felony convictions. The sentences imposed are within the statutory range. See A.R.S. §§ 13-703(C), (J), 28-1383(O)(1). ¶5 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for reversible error and have found none. Therefore, we affirm Kee’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.
