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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

STEVEN MARQUEZ LIRA, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 18-0337

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2017-130341-001

The Honorable David V. Seyer, 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 Carlos Daniel Carrion

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 3-12-2019
STATE v. LIRA

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop delivered the decision of the Court, 

in which Judge Maria Elena Cruz and Judge Kenton D. Jones joined.

W I N T H R O P, 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 Steven 

Marquez Lira has advised this Court that counsel found no arguable 

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

Lira was convicted of two class 4 felonies pursuant to Arizona Revised 

Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 28-1383(A)(1): one count of aggravated DUI with 

a suspended license; and one count of aggravated driving a vehicle with a 

blood-alcohol concentration greater than 0.08 percent with a suspended 

license. Lira was given an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria 

persona; he has not done so. Finding no error upon reviewing the record, 

we affirm Lira’s convictions and sentences.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

judgment and resolve all reasonable inferences against Lira. See State v. 

Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230, ¶ 2 (App. 1998).

¶3 One night in June 2017, Officer Borovac initiated a traffic stop 

after he observed Lira’s truck with one broken taillight swerving back and 

forth within its lane. Officer Borovac testified that when he approached 

Lira’s rolled-down driver window, he observed Lira’s eyes were bloodshot 

and watery, Lira responded to questions with slurred speech, and an odor 

of alcohol emanated from the vehicle. Lira told Officer Borovac that he had 

consumed five beers prior to driving, and that his driver’s license was 

suspended. Officer Borovac then administered field sobriety tests to Lira;

the results of each such test indicated impairment. Officer Borovac arrested 

Lira for DUI, and shortly thereafter a blood test was administered to Lira 

pursuant to a warrant. The forensic toxicologist testified as to the chain of 

custody, and that Lira’s blood-alcohol content was 0.197—over three times 

the legal limit.
STATE v. LIRA

Decision of the Court

3

¶4 Maria Carlon of the Arizona Department of Transportation 

Motor Vehicle Division testified that Lira had a suspended license on his 

date of arrest; that he had been notified of the suspension multiple times

prior to that date; and that he was even personally served one such notice 

by a police officer.

¶5 After the State rested, Lira moved for acquittal pursuant to 

Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 20; the court denied the motion. Lira 

did not testify and did not otherwise present a defense. The court properly 

instructed the jury as to each count, and after closing arguments the case 

was presented to an eight-member jury which returned unanimous guilty 

verdicts as to both counts.

¶6 The court later sentenced Lira to serve five months in prison 

with two days’ pre-incarceration credit, to be followed by four years’ 

probation. The court further ordered Lira to pay a number of fees and 

penalties related to his probation and rehabilitation, including two DUI 

fines each totaling $1,372.50. Lira’s fingerprint was affixed to the sentencing 

order before the court. Lira timely appealed. We have jurisdiction 

pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and A.R.S. 

§§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-0431, and -4033(a)(1).

ANALYSIS

¶7 We review Lira’s convictions and sentences for fundamental 

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

omitted). Counsel for Lira 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 the 

proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of 

Criminal Procedure. Lira was represented by counsel at all stages of the 

proceedings, and the sentences imposed were within the statutory 

guidelines. Accordingly, we decline to order further briefing and affirm 

Lira’s convictions and sentences.

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

Lira 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). Lira shall have thirty days 

from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro per motion 

for reconsideration or petition for review.
STATE v. LIRA

Decision of the Court

4

CONCLUSION

¶9 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Lira’s convictions and 

sentences.