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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

ESAHIN MUNIZ-MUNGUIA, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 16-0750

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2015-138820-001

The Honorable Annielaurie Van Wie, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix

By Jeffrey L. Force

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 3-27-2018
STATE v. MUNIZ-MUNGUIA

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Randall M. Howe delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Peter B. Swann and Judge Maria Elena Cruz joined.

H O W E, Judge:

¶1 This appeal is filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 

U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969). Counsel for Esahin 

Muniz-Munguia has advised this Court that counsel found no arguable 

questions of law and asks us to search the record for fundamental error.

Muniz-Munguia was convicted of two counts of aggravated DUI, both class 

4 felonies, and one count of leaving an accident involving damage to a 

vehicle, a class 2 misdemeanor. Muniz-Munguia was given an opportunity 

to file a supplemental brief in propria persona; he has not done so. After 

reviewing the record, we affirm Muniz-Munguia’s convictions and 

sentences. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 We view the facts in the lights most favorable to sustaining 

the judgment and resolve all reasonable inferences against MunizMunguia. See State v. Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230 ¶ 2 (App. 1998). In May 2015, 

Muniz-Munguia lost control of his car, went over the median, and crashed 

into another car. After Muniz-Munguia’s car came to stop, a witness saw 

three men exit the car. Two of them, including Muniz-Munguia, 

immediately ran away from the scene. The third man asked the witness if 

they needed to stay at the scene, and the witness replied yes and that the 

police were on their way. The third man then ran from the scene.

¶3 Officer Jason Stokes arrived at the scene and talked to the

driver that Muniz-Munguia had collided into. He obtained a description of 

Muniz-Munguia and his direction of travel and then headed in that 

direction. At a trailer park about a half block away, Officer Stokes saw 

Muniz-Munguia, who matched the description he had received, weaving 

through trailers. Officer Stokes stopped Muniz-Munguia and observed that 

he seemed incoherent, had slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and an odor of 

alcohol on his breath. Muniz-Munguia admitted that he was the owner and 

driver of the abandoned car involved in the crash and that he was coming 

from a party where he had been drinking alcohol. When asked for his 
STATE v. MUNIZ-MUNGUIA

Decision of the Court

3

identification, Muniz-Munguia presented Officer Stokes with an Arizona 

identification card rather than a driver’s license. Officer Stokes took MunizMunguia back to the scene of the crash, and both the other driver and 

witness identified him as the driver. For Muniz-Munguia’s safety, Officer 

Stokes did not have him perform any field sobriety tests because he could 

not stand up very well. Officer Stokes subsequently arrested MunizMunguia for DUI and took him to a police station for processing.

¶4 Officer Keith Broughten conducted a breathalyzer test and 

drew a blood sample for later analysis. During this time, Muniz-Munguia 

admitted to Officer Broughten that he had been drinking, that he had been 

driving the car in the crash, and that his driver’s license had been 

suspended. When Officer Broughten ran a check on Muniz-Munguia’s 

license, however, the results said that his driving privileges were not 

suspended. 

¶5 At trial, a forensic scientist for the Phoenix Police Crime 

Laboratory testified that she analyzed Muniz-Munguia’s blood and 

concluded that it had a blood alcohol concentration (“BAC”) of 0.170. She 

also testified that the scientific community asserts that all people are 

impaired to drive a car with a 0.08 BAC, regardless of a person’s experience 

with alcohol. 

¶6 An investigator and deputy custodian of records for the 

Motor Vehicle Division (“MVD”) reviewed Muniz-Munguia’s driving 

record and testified that Muniz-Munguia’s license had been suspended 

three times before the crash. The suspensions occurred in October 2013, 

December 2013, and February 2014. The investigator also testified that the 

MVD sent letters to Muniz-Munguia’s address notifying him of the 

suspensions and how to get his license reinstated. Muniz-Munguia did not 

address any of the suspensions by the time of the collision, however. The 

investigator further testified that Muniz-Munguia’s driving record 

incorrectly listed his gender as female. He described the mistake as an 

unfortunate typo, but he asserted that the typo did not make the driving 

record any less credible. 

¶7 The jury found Muniz-Munguia guilty on all three counts. 

The trial court conducted the sentencing hearing in compliance with 

Muniz-Munguia’s constitutional rights and Arizona Rule of Criminal 

Procedure 26. The court sentenced Muniz-Munguia to four months in the 

Department of Corrections, followed by two years of supervised probation.

The court awarded Muniz-Munguia with one day presentence 
STATE v. MUNIZ-MUNGUIA

Decision of the Court

4

incarceration credit and ordered him to pay the applicable DUI fines, fees, 

and assessments. Muniz-Munguia timely appealed.

DISCUSSION

¶8 We review Muniz-Munguia’s convictions and sentences for 

fundamental error. See State v. Flores, 227 Ariz. 509, 512 ¶ 12 (App. 2011). 

Counsel for Muniz-Munguia has advised this Court that after a diligent 

search of the entire record, counsel has found no arguable question of law. 

We have read and considered counsel’s brief and fully reviewed the record 

for reversible error, see Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, and find none. All of the 

proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of 

Criminal Procedure. So far as the record reveals, counsel represented 

Muniz-Munguia at all stages of the proceedings, and the sentences imposed 

were within the statutory guidelines. We decline to order briefing and 

affirm Muniz-Munguia’s convictions and sentences.

¶9 Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel shall inform 

Muniz-Munguia of the status of the appeal and of his future options. 

Counsel has no further obligations unless, upon review, 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). MunizMunguia shall have 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he 

desires, with a pro per motion for reconsideration or petition for review.

CONCLUSION

¶10 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.