from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No.
LC2015-000249-001 The Honorable Crane McClennen, Judge
Phoenix City Prosecutor's Office, Phoenix By Gary L.
Shupe Counsel for Appellee
Cameron A. Morgan, Scottsdale Counsel for Appellant
Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the opinion of the
Court, in which Chief Judge Michael J. Brown and Judge
Patricia A. Orozco joined. 
Adam Mark Reiher was convicted of various driving while under
the influence (DUI) offenses in Phoenix Municipal Court.
Reiher unsuccessfully appealed those convictions in the
Superior Court. Now, he argues this court should apply
State v. Valenzuela, 239 Ariz. 299 (2016), and
Brown v. McClennen, 239 Ariz. 521 (2016),
retroactively and vacate his convictions. Because this court
lacks appellate jurisdiction over Reiher's challenge, the
appeal is dismissed.
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In November 2013, police arrested Reiher and charged him with
DUI pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) section
28-1381(A)(1), (2) (2017). After advising Reiher of his rights
pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966),
a police officer read him the implied consent affidavit
(admin per se) form. After being asked to do so, Reiher
agreed to a blood test, signed a consent form and blood was
drawn and analyzed, resulting in additional DUI charges being
filed against him.
Pretrial, Reiher unsuccessfully moved to suppress the blood
test results, arguing that the blood draw was not voluntary
and that the implied consent law was unconstitutional. After
Reiher submitted the matter to the court, the court found him
guilty of various DUI offenses, including two extreme DUI
offenses, and imposed consequences.
Reiher unsuccessfully appealed to the Superior Court, arguing
that the blood draw was not voluntary and that the implied
consent law was unconstitutional. On appeal to this court,
Reiher no longer challenges the constitutionality of A.R.S.
§ 28-1321. Instead, he relies on Valenzuela and
Brown, which held that a driver's consent to
blood testing, obtained after a police officer advised that
"Arizona law requires you to submit" to such
testing, was not "freely and voluntarily given."
Valenzuela, 239 Ariz. at 301 ¶ 2;
Brown, 239 Ariz. at 523 ¶ 2 (similar for
watercraft operator). In this appeal, Reiher argues
Valenzuela and Brown should apply
retroactively and, as a result, his convictions should be
This court lacks appellate jurisdiction to hear an appeal
from "a final judgment of the superior court in an
action appealed from a justice of the peace or municipal
court" unless, as applicable here, the appeal
"involves the validity of a . . . statute." A.R.S.
§ 22-375(A). The State argues that, given Reiher is now
only arguing ...