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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

DELBERT FRED BRECHLER, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 14-0601

Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County

No. S8015CR201300937

The Honorable Rick A. Williams, Judge

AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED IN PART

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Andrew S. Reilly

Counsel for Appellee

Mohave County Legal Advocate’s Office, Kingman

By Jill L. Evans

Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. BRECHLER

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Jon W. Thompson delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Margaret H. Downie and Judge Kenton D. Jones joined.

T H O M P S O N, Judge:

¶1 This case comes to us as an appeal under Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969). 

Counsel for Delbert Fred Brechler (defendant) has filed a brief requesting 

that this court conduct an Anders review of the record. In that brief, counsel 

asserts that defendant’s conviction and sentence for DUI with a blood 

alcohol concentration (BAC) over .08% must be vacated because it is a lesser 

included offense to DUI with BAC over .15%. We ordered the parties to 

submit supplemental briefs addressing the issue. In its supplemental brief, 

the state concedes that per se DUI with BAC over .08% is a lesser included 

offense of DUI with a BAC over .15% and that the conviction and sentence 

for the lesser included offense should be vacated. Defendant has been 

afforded an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, but 

he has not done so.

¶2 On July 21, 2013, defendant was in a car accident on Route 66 

in Mohave County involving a Ford Ranger driven by seventeen-year-old 

C.R. and occupied by J.S. Defendant’s Volvo hit the Ford Ranger from 

behind as both vehicles traveled down the road, causing the Ford Ranger 

to roll into the median. J.S. was able to get out of the Ford Ranger but was 

injured in the accident. C.R. died at the hospital that night. DPS officers 

arrived at the scene and defendant admitted that he was the driver of the 

Volvo. A DPS officer observed several signs of defendant’s impairment and 

conducted a series of standardized field sobriety tests, all of which he failed. 

The officer arrested defendant and conducted breathalyzer tests; defendant

registered a .205% and a .209% BAC. The results of defendant’s blood draw 

showed a .208% and .209% BAC. 

¶3 The state charged defendant with one count of manslaughter, 

a class 2 dangerous felony (death of C.S.); one count of aggravated assault 

with a deadly weapon, a class 3 dangerous felony (as to J.S.); and three 

counts of misdemeanor DUI (under the influence of intoxicating liquor, 

BAC over .08%, and extreme DUI with BAC over .15%). Defendant was not 

present at trial, and the court issued a bench warrant. The jury found 
STATE v. BRECHLER

Decision of the Court

3

defendant guilty on all charges. The jury also found the following 

aggravating factors as to the manslaughter: 1) emotional harm to the family 

of C.R.; 2) BAC over .15%; 3) the youth of the victim; and 4) defendant had 

a previous DUI offense within the past seven years. As to the aggravated 

assault, the jury found the following aggravating factors: 1) emotional harm 

to the victim; 2) BAC over .15%; and 3) defendant’s DUI conviction within 

the past seven years. The trial court found the following mitigating factors: 

no prior felony convictions and defendant’s role as caretaker for his parents. 

¶4 Defendant was present during sentencing. In light of all 

aggravating and mitigating factors, the trial court sentenced defendant to 

an aggravated sentence of eighteen years for manslaughter (count 1) to run 

consecutively to an aggravated sentence of ten years for aggravated assault

(count 2). The court ordered the sentences for counts 1 and 2 to run 

consecutively to the DUI sentences. For each of the three counts of DUI

(counts 3, 4, and 5), the trial court sentenced defendant to sixty days in jail

with credit for sixty days served, all to run concurrently. 

¶5 We have read and considered defendant’s Anders brief as well 

as the parties’ supplemental briefs, and we have searched the entire record 

for reversible error. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. The state 

concedes in its supplemental brief that defendant’s conviction for per se DUI 

with a BAC over .08% is a lesser included offense of extreme DUI with a 

BAC over .15% and that defendant’s sentence and conviction for count 4 

should be vacated. We agree. See State v. Solis, 236 Ariz. 242, 249 ¶ 24, 338 

P.3d 982, 989 (App. 2014) (“charges of driving with a BAC of .08 or more

and extreme DUI with a BAC of .15 are lesser-included offenses of DUI with 

a BAC of .20 or more, and double jeopardy bar[s] . . . convictions for those 

charges.”). Otherwise, all of the proceedings were conducted in compliance 

with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the sentence imposed 

was within the statutory limits. 

¶6 We affirm defendant’s convictions and sentences for counts 1, 

2, 3, and 5. We vacate defendant’s conviction and sentence for count 4, DUI 

with BAC over .08%. Pursuant to State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 

P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984), defendant’s counsel’s obligations in this appeal are 

at an end. Defendant has thirty days from the date of this decision in which 
STATE v. BRECHLER

Decision of the Court

4

to proceed, if he so desires, with an in propria persona motion for 

reconsideration or petition for review.