Articles Posted in DUI Case Law

Earlier this month, an Arizona court of appeals had to decide how an early-release statute would apply to a defendant that could not actually obey the statute given her specific situation. In the case before the court, an individual had been convicted of extreme driving under the influence. The early-release statute in question says that if someone convicted of this crime installs an ignition interlock device in her/his car, that person can have their sentence lessened by 31 days. Because the defendant did not own a car, the court had to decide whether she was still eligible for early release.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was charged with and convicted of extreme driving under the influence. When officers asked her to take a breath test on the road, her blood alcohol content was .20, significantly over the legal limit of .08. The high concentration of alcohol meant that the defendant was not only subject to penalties for driving under the influence, but also for a separate crime known as “extreme” driving under the influence.

In Arizona, if a person convicted of this crime installs an ignition interlock in her/his car, she or he can be released from jail 31 days ahead of schedule. Here, the defendant asked for early release from her probation, but the State argued she had not even finished her full time in jail, let alone completed the requirements of probation. The defendant stated that she should be released under the ignition interlock statute even though she had not technically complied – she did not own a car and thus could not have complied without purchasing an entirely new vehicle.

Continue reading

In a recent opinion coming out of an Arizona court, the defendant’s appeal of his aggravated DUI conviction was denied. The court found no reason to reverse the jury’s guilty verdict; they did, however, notice that the defendant’s sentence was calculated incorrectly and that he should have been given less time in prison. Because of that error, the court modified the defendant’s sentence by taking away ten days of time in prison.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, a police offer received a call from local patrons that there was disorderly conduct at a nearby bar. The officer arrived at the scene and approached the defendant in this case, who he immediately identified as the source of the patrons’ complaint. The defendant had watery eyes, slurred speech, and difficulties with balance. The officer told the defendant he needed to leave the premises on foot, which he did.

Minutes later, some of the witnesses informed the officer that the defendant had driven away in his car. The officer left the property in his own car, eventually finding the defendant driving a few miles away. At the time, the defendant’s truck was weaving significantly between lanes.

Continue reading

Recently, an Arizona court ruled on a defendant’s appeal in a case involving charges of driving under the influence and leaving the scene of an accident. On appeal, the defendant argued that his lawyer was ineffective in the lower court proceedings and that he was not given a fair chance to litigate his case. The court considered the defendant’s argument but ultimately disagreed, affirming the original guilty conviction.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, a woman in Arizona was stopped at a red light when the car behind her crashed into her automobile from behind. The woman’s car sprung forward, and she collided with the car in front of her. When the woman got out of her car, she looked behind her and saw the defendant exiting the vehicle which had been the original catalyst of the crash. He ran away, and the woman told police officers what he looked like when they arrived at the scene.

Several witnesses were also able to provide descriptions of the defendant’s appearance, and officers soon tracked him down in a nearby neighborhood. The defendant was charged with and convicted of driving under the influence and leaving the scene of an accident. He promptly appealed.

Continue reading

In a recent DUI case coming out of an Arizona court, the defendant’s appeal of his guilty conviction was unsuccessful. The defendant had originally pointed out on appeal that the police officer who arrested him did not have his body camera turned on, and he argued that the trial court should have instructed the jury as to the officer’s error. The higher court concluded that the jury instruction was ultimately unnecessary and that the defendant’s conviction should be affirmed.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was driving his Dodge Charger when he rear-ended another car, which pushed it into a nearby wall. A witness who had witnessed the accident followed the defendant, watching him as he drove into a nearby parking lot. The witness inquired as to whether the defendant was going to check on the driver of the second car. The defendant said yes and promptly headed back to the scene of the accident.

By the time the defendant returned to the collision site, a police officer was at the scene. This officer observed that the defendant had watery and bloodshot eyes, as well as that he smelled of alcohol. Approximately one hour after the accident, the defendant submitted to a blood draw, which revealed a blood alcohol concentration of .164 percent. Around that time, the defendant admitted to the officer that he had rear-ended the second car and that he was alone in his Dodge Charger.

Continue reading

The State of Arizona takes DUI and related offenses extremely seriously. First-time offenders are often required to serve jail time, and subsequent offenders can face substantial prison sentences. With each successive DUI, the punishment becomes exponentially more severe, making it extremely important for persons accused of DUI to obtain competent legal counsel. The Arizona Court of Appeals recently addressed a defendant’s appeal of his DUI conviction, which was for a second offense and resulted in a prison sentence of 4.5 years.

The defendant in the recently decided appeal was stopped while operating a motor vehicle on I-17 in Maricopa county. According to the facts discussed in the appellate opinion, officers smelled the odor of alcohol on the man and suspected he was driving under the influence of alcohol. After performing sobriety tests, and ultimately a chemical test showing a blood alcohol concentration over the legal limit, the defendant was charged with an aggravated DUI. The defendant had previously been convicted of aggravated DUI in the State of Arizona in 2006. The defendant was offered a plea agreement by prosecutors, which he rejected, and the case was taken to trial.

After a jury trial in which several witnesses testified against the defendant, he was found guilty of the aggravated DUI charges. The defendant was not sentenced immediately after his conviction; as he was instructed to return for sentencing. The defendant failed to appear for his sentencing hearing, and a warrant was issued for his arrest. After the defendant was found several months later, he was sentenced for crimes. The defendant was sentenced to two prison terms of 4.5 years, which would be served concurrently. The defendant appealed his conviction to the state court of appeals.

In a recent Arizona DUI case, the defendant’s appeal of his guilty verdict was denied. The defendant appealed in part because he was not present at his trial, and he asked the court to reverse the verdict given his absence. The higher court denied the appeal, finding it was the defendant’s own decision to skip the trial, and that his voluntary decision made him subject to the consequences of the jury’s decision.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, two cars approached the entry gate of a Target warehouse one evening in March 2018. Coincidentally arriving at the same time, the driver of the second car watched as the driver of the first car rammed his vehicle into the closed gate and squeezed into the parking lot. The gate came off its tracks and the driver of the second car immediately called 911.

When police officers arrived, they found the first car zooming around in the parking lot, and they suspected the driver was under the influence of drugs or alcohol. The officers stopped the car and found the defendant in this case at the wheel and his one-year-old daughter in the back of the car. At this point, the officers noticed that the defendant’s eyes were bloodshot; he smelled of alcohol, and his words were jumbled and slurred.

Continue reading

In a recent opinion from an Arizona court, the defendant’s appeal of his convictions and sentences was denied. The defendant was originally convicted of four counts of aggravated driving or actual physical control while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs, which are class 4 felonies. In an attempt to fight these convictions, the defendant asked the Arizona court to review the trial record for any errors that could have unfairly affected his guilty verdict. Finding no errors, the court affirmed the defendant’s convictions.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was pulled over by a police officer because a rear-mounted camera blocked one-quarter of his car’s license plate, which should have been on full display. The officer checked the license plate in his system and found that it was invalid.

During the traffic stop, the officer noticed that the defendant had bloodshot eyes and was grinding his teeth. Suspecting that the defendant had been driving under the influence, the officer conducted field sobriety tests, including asking him to walk in a straight line and to balance on one foot. The defendant could not maintain his balance and continuously fidgeted during the sobriety tests.

Continue reading

Recently, an Arizona appellate court affirmed a lower court’s convictions of a defendant in a DUI case involving a minor passenger. The defendant appealed the lower court’s decision, arguing that there was a fundamental error in the record. The appellate court found that there was no fundamental error because the court proceedings were properly conducted and afforded the defendant all of his constitutional and statutory rights. The appellate court affirmed the defendant’s convictions. Operating a vehicle while under the influence and with a minor present in the vehicle results in heightened penalties in the state of Arizona.

The Facts of the Case

On the night of the incident, a police officer was driving on a highway and observed a vehicle stopped on an exit ramp. The defendant was the driver, and his eight-year-old son was also in the car. According to the arresting officer, the defendant stumbled while getting out of the car and spoke with slurred speech, prompting the Arizona Department of Public Safety Troopers to investigate. The troopers observed the defendant’s bloodshot watery eyes and the smell of alcohol, and the defendant’s subsequent field sobriety tests indicated he may be under the influence of alcohol. The troopers administered a blood test, revealing the defendant’s blood alcohol content (BAC) to be 0.187, which is above the 0.08 threshold and thus indicates driving while impaired.