State v. Varela

NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL
AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE
ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee,

v.

JOSUE ARRATIA VARELA, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 18-0492
FILED 5-28-2020

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2016-134168-001
The Honorable David V. Seyer, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Michael O'Toole
Counsel for Appellee

The Susser Law Firm, PLLC, Chandler
By Adam M. Susser
Counsel for Appellant
 STATE v. VARELA
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge David B. Gass joined.

W E I N Z W E I G, Judge:

¶1 Josue Arratia Varela (“Varela”) appeals his convictions and
sentences for two counts of aggravated driving under the influence. After
searching the record and finding no arguable, non-frivolous question of
law, Varela’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), asking this court
to search the record for fundamental error. Varela had the opportunity to
file a supplemental brief but did not. We affirm Varela’s convictions and
sentences after reviewing the record.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Varela was traveling 81 miles per hour in a 65 mile per hour
zone. When police pulled him over, Varela had bloodshot eyes, droopy
eyelids, slowed speech and delayed reactions. His driver’s license had been
suspended. He showed signs of impairment on three field sobriety tests
and was arrested for driving under the influence. He consented to have his
blood drawn. A forensic toxicologist later determined that Varela had
Alprazolam in his blood, a “dangerous drug” under A.R.S. § 13-
3401(6)(d)(ii).

¶3 Varela was charged with two counts of aggravated driving
under the influence under A.R.S § 12-1383(A)(1) because his license was
suspended, he was impaired to the slightest degree and had Alprazolam in
his system. He waived his right to a preliminary hearing and pleaded not
guilty. A jury trial was held. Varela stipulated that his driver’s license had
been suspended. The arresting officer and forensic toxicologist testified.
Varela did not testify or present any evidence.

¶4 The jury convicted Varela on both counts of aggravated
driving under the influence. At the sentencing hearing, Varela admitted to
a prior non-dangerous felony conviction, enhancing his sentencing range
pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-703(I). He also admitted to being on felony release
when arrested for the offense, enhancing his sentencing range two years

2
 STATE v. VARELA
Decision of the Court

under A.R.S. § 13-708(D). Even so, the superior court sentenced Varela to
concurrent, super-mitigated terms of 4.25 years’ imprisonment on each
count. He was credited for 77 days served. The court also imposed various
fines and fees. Varela timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under Article
6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-
4031 and -4033(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶5 We have read and considered counsel’s brief and have
reviewed the record for reversible error. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300. We find
none.

¶6 Varela was present and represented by counsel at all stages of
the proceedings against him. The record reflects that the superior court
afforded Varela all his constitutional and statutory rights, and that the
proceedings were conducted in accordance with the Arizona Rules of
Criminal Procedure. The court conducted appropriate pretrial hearings,
and the evidence presented at trial and summarized above was enough to
support the jury’s verdicts. Varela’s sentences fall within the range
prescribed by law, with sufficient credit given for presentence
incarceration.

CONCLUSION

¶7 Varela’s convictions and sentences are affirmed. Counsel’s
obligations in this appeal will end once Varela is informed of the outcome
and his future options, unless counsel finds an issue appropriate for
submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. See State
v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85 (1984). On the court’s own motion, Varela
has 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed with a pro se motion
for reconsideration or petition for review.

AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
FILED: AA

3