Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. De Anda

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Second Division

May 3, 2018

The State of Arizona, Appellee,
v.
Alfonso De Anda III, Appellant.

          Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County No. CR20161614001 The Honorable Richard D. Nichols, Judge

          Mark Brnovich, Arizona Attorney General Joseph T. Maziarz, Chief Counsel By Tanja K. Kelly, Assistant Attorney General, Tucson Counsel for Appellee

          Joel Feinman, Pima County Public Defender By Michael J. Miller, Assistant Public Defender, Tucson Counsel for Appellant

          Judge Eppich authored the opinion of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Vásquez and Judge Espinosa concurred.

          OPINION

          EPPICH, Judge:

         ¶1 Alfonso De Anda III, appeals his convictions and sentences for two counts each of aggravated driving under the influence and aggravated driving with a blood alcohol concentration of .08 or more. He argues the trial court should have suppressed the results of a test of his blood.[1] Because we find no error, we affirm.

         Factual and Procedural Background

         ¶2 We review the evidence presented at the suppression hearing "in the light most favorable to sustaining the court's ruling, deferring to the court's determination of facts and witness credibility but reviewing de novo its legal conclusions." State v. Waller, 235 Ariz. 479, ¶ 5 (App. 2014) (citation omitted). After a Tucson police officer stopped De Anda while he was driving, De Anda exhibited signs of alcohol impairment and was arrested. Pursuant to Arizona's implied-consent statute, A.R.S. § 28-1321, another officer advised De Anda as follows:

Arizona law states that a person who operates a motor vehicle at any time in this state gives consent to a test or tests of blood, breath, urine or other bodily substance for the purpose of determining alcohol concentration or drug content. The law enforcement officer is authorized to request more than one test and may choose the types of tests.
If the test results are not available, or indicate an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or above (0.04 or above in a commercial vehicle, ) or indicate any drug defined in ARS 13-3401 or its metabolite without a valid prescription, then your Arizona driving privilege will be suspended for not less than 90 consecutive days.
If you refuse, do not expressly agree to submit to, or do not successfully complete the tests, your Arizona driving privilege will be suspended. The suspension will be requested for 12 months, or for two years if you've had a prior implied-consent refusal within the last 84 months.
Will you submit to the tests?

         De Anda agreed, and the officer drew his blood and submitted it for forensic analysis. De Anda was subsequently charged with the four counts described above.

         ¶3 Before trial, De Anda filed a motion to suppress all evidence obtained from the blood test, contending that his consent to submit to the test had been coerced by the officer's advisement. Specifically, he argued the officer should have given him the option to submit or refuse testing prior to explaining the penalties associated with refusal. After a hearing, the trial court denied his motion and the results of the blood test were admitted at trial. De Anda was convicted of all four counts and sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment, the longest of which is four months, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.