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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE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 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA , Appellee
,

v.

STEVEN MARQUEZ LIRA , Appellant

.
No. 1 CA

- CR 18

- 0 33 7

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 C ounsel for Appellant FILED 3-12-2019STATE 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 suspen ded 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 reaso nable 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 w ith 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 a n odor of alcohol emanat ed 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 w as 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 T he 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 eac h 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 conviction s and sentence s 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. W e have read and considered counsel’s brief and fully reviewed the record for reversible error, s ee 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 th e proceedings, and the sentences imposed were within the statutory guidelines. Accordingly, w e d ecline to order further briefing and affirm Lira ’s convictions and sentences

. ¶8 Upon the filing of this decision, def ense counsel shall inform Lira of the status of the appeal and of his future options. C ounsel has no further obligations unless, upon revie w, 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 pr o 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.