Background
A Tempe police detective stopped Rudy Joe Anthony Reyes after observing him swerving while driving with two passengers, including a 2-year-old child. Reyes admitted that he lacked a driver’s license and had used marijuana the previous night; an investigation showed that his license was suspended. The detective observed signs of possible impairment during field sobriety tests, arrested Reyes, and found a marijuana “wax pen” during a search. Blood testing detected THC and carboxy THC.
The State charged Reyes with aggravated DUI based on driving while impaired with a suspended license and driving while impaired with a passenger under age 15. A jury found him guilty on both counts. The superior court suspended imposition of sentence and imposed three years’ probation on each count, conditioned on Reyes first serving six months in the Department of Corrections on Count 1, with 142 days of presentence-incarceration credit. On appeal, defense counsel filed an Anders brief stating that she found no arguable legal issue, and Reyes did not submit a supplemental brief.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals independently reviewed the entire record for fundamental and reversible error and found none. It concluded that Reyes was represented by counsel at all stages, was present at all critical stages, received an opportunity to speak at sentencing, and received proceedings consistent with his constitutional and statutory rights and the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.
The court also held that the trial evidence was sufficient to support both verdicts and that the sentences were lawful, including the presentence-incarceration credit. Although the early proceedings reflected confusion over whether Reyes had rejected an initial plea offer, the court found no reversible error because the State later re-extended the same terms and Reyes knowingly rejected them after receiving the required advisement. The court therefore affirmed his convictions and sentences.
Key Takeaways
- In an Anders appeal, the appellate court independently reviews the entire record for fundamental and reversible error when counsel identifies no arguable issue.
- Evidence of Reyes’s driving, performance on sobriety tests, possession of a marijuana wax pen, and blood-test results was sufficient to support the aggravated DUI verdicts.
- Confusion surrounding the initial plea offer did not require reversal because Reyes later knowingly rejected an offer containing the same terms.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the scope of Arizona appellate review under Anders and confirms that an otherwise confusing plea-offer history may be harmless when the same offer is later presented and knowingly rejected following an appropriate advisement.
Because the memorandum decision is designated “not for official publication,” it is nonprecedential and may be cited only as authorized by Arizona Supreme Court Rule 111(c).