State v. Reyes

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

RUDY JOE ANTHONY REYES, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 25-0274
FILED 10-13-2026

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2022-128955-001
The Honorable Utiki Spurling Laing, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Alice Jones
Counsel for Appellee

Ortega & Ortega PLLC, Phoenix
By Alane M. Ortega
Counsel for Appellant

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Cynthia J. Bailey delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Judge Angela K. Paton and Judge Michael J. Brown joined.

STATE v. REYES
Decision of the Court

B A I L E Y, Judge:

¶1 Rudy Joe Anthony Reyes appeals his convictions and
sentences for two counts of aggravated DUI. Reyes’s counsel filed a brief
in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), advising this court that, after reviewing the record, she
was unable to discover any arguable question of law to raise on appeal.
Counsel requests that this court independently review the record for
fundamental error. See State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 567-69, ¶¶ 19-26
(2005); State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999) (stating that this
court reviews the entire record for reversible error). Reyes was given the
opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona but did not do so.
After reviewing the record, we find no fundamental error and thus affirm
Reyes’s convictions and sentences.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining
Reyes’s convictions and resolve all reasonable inferences against him. See
State v. Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230, ¶ 2 (App. 1998).

¶3 On the evening of March 17, 2021, Reyes was driving with two
passengers, including a 2-year-old child, when a Tempe Police Department
detective pulled him over for swerving. Reyes gave the detective his state
identification card but admitted that he did not have a driver’s license.
Later investigation revealed that Reyes’s driver’s license was suspended.
Reyes also told the detective that he had smoked marijuana the night
before, but stated that he had consumed no alcohol, marijuana, or drugs
since then.

¶4 The detective suspected that Reyes was impaired because his
voice was very shaky and he was acting “over nervous.” With Reyes’s
consent, the detective administered multiple standardized field sobriety
tests (“FSTs”). During the FSTs, the detective noted that Reyes had red
watery eyes, eyelid tremors, eye twitching, and raised taste buds. When
Reyes was asked to stand on one leg, he swayed, had to use his arms to
balance, and struggled with counting. And when Reyes was asked to walk
and turn, he “started off on the wrong foot,” displayed “slow and robotic
movements,” and turned the opposite way than instructed. Reyes also had
“quite a few misses” in a non-standardized finger-to-nose touch test.

¶5 The detective arrested Reyes, searched him incident to the
arrest, and found a “wax pen” which the detective recognized as “cannabis

2

STATE v. REYES
Decision of the Court

concentrate.” Reyes agreed to have his blood drawn for testing. The testing
showed that Reyes’s blood contained THC as well as carboxy THC.

¶6 The State charged Reyes with two counts of aggravated DUI:
(1) driving while impaired with a revoked or suspended license, and (2)
driving while impaired with a passenger less than 15 years of age. A.R.S.
§§ 28-1381(A)(1), -1383(A)(1) & (3). In Early Disposition Court, the State
extended Reyes a plea offer but Reyes affirmed his preliminary hearing.
The State stated on the record that by affirming his preliminary hearing,
Reyes was “effectively rejecting the plea offer” and “[i]f another offer is
extended . . . it will be harsher.”

¶7 Still, throughout the pretrial proceedings, Reyes repeatedly
asserted that he had not rejected the plea offer. The State disagreed, but
ultimately re-extended the same plea offer. The court advised Reyes
consistent with State v. Donald, 198 Ariz. 406 (App. 2000), and Reyes rejected
the offer. The matter proceeded to trial.

¶8 At trial, the State presented evidence of the foregoing facts.
The State also presented testimony that THC impairs a driver’s ability to
gauge speed, accurately judge distances, and stay within marked lane lines.

¶9 At the close of the State’s case in chief, Reyes moved for a
judgment of acquittal under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 20,
arguing that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support
convictions. The superior court denied Reyes’s motion.

¶10 Reyes testified that he had used marijuana the night before he
was arrested and that he was very nervous when the detective pulled him
over. He explained that his vision was blurry because he has astigmatism
and was not wearing his contacts. He confirmed that the “wax pen” on his
person was a marijuana pen but testified that it was a recent purchase he
had not used.

¶11 The jury found Reyes guilty on both counts. The court
entered judgment on the verdicts, suspended imposition of sentence, and
placed Reyes on three years’ probation on each count with the condition
that he first serve six months in the Department of Corrections on Count 1.
Reyes was given 142 days’ credit for presentence incarceration.

¶12 Reyes timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised
Statutes (“A.R.S.”) §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and 13-4033(A).

3

STATE v. REYES
Decision of the Court

DISCUSSION

¶13 As this is an Anders appeal, we review for fundamental error.
See Henderson, 210 Ariz. at 567-69, ¶¶ 19-26; Clark, 196 Ariz. at 537, ¶ 30. We
have read and considered counsel’s brief and have reviewed the entire
record for reversible error and find none. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300; Clark,
196 Ariz. at 537, ¶ 30.

¶14 Reyes was represented by counsel at all stages of the
proceedings, was present at all critical stages, and was given the
opportunity to speak at sentencing. The proceedings were conducted in
compliance with Reyes’s constitutional and statutory rights and conformed
to the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. The evidence presented at trial
was sufficient to support the jury’s verdicts. Reyes’s sentences fall within
the range prescribed by law, with proper credit given for presentence
incarceration. While there was some confusion about Reyes’s plea offer
during the initial stages of the proceeding, there is no reversible error
because Reyes knowingly rejected the same plea offer terms later in the
proceeding. See Donald, 198 Ariz. at 414, ¶ 20.

CONCLUSION

¶15 We affirm Reyes’s convictions and sentences.

¶16 Upon the filing of this decision, Reyes’s counsel shall inform
him of the status of his appeal and of his future options. Counsel has no
further obligations unless, upon review, counsel finds an issue that may be
appropriately submitted to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for
review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85 (1984). Reyes has 30 days
from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro per motion
for reconsideration or petition for review. See Ariz. R. Crim. P.
31.21(b)(2)(A). On the court’s own motion, Reyes has 30 days from the date
of this decision to file a motion for reconsideration. See Ariz. R. Crim. P.
31.20(c).

MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court
FILED: JR

4