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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL 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

RODY MICHAEL BEGAY, Appellant. 

No. 1 CA-CR 14-0538 

 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County 

No. CR2013-417592-001 

The Honorable Jerry Bernstein, 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 Christopher V. Johns 

Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. BEGAY 

Decision of the Court 

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

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

which Judge Jon W. Thompson and Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop 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, 451 P.2d 878 (1969). Counsel 

for Rody Michael Begay asks this Court to search the record for 

fundamental error. Begay was given an opportunity to file a supplemental 

brief in propria persona. He has not done so. After reviewing the record, 

we affirm Begay’s convictions and sentences. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

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

trial court’s judgment and resolve all reasonable inferences against Begay. 

State v. Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230 ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 897, 898 (App. 1998). 

¶3 Late one evening in April 2013, a Phoenix police officer on 

patrol saw the car in front of him stop at a red light then make a right turn, 

even though two traffic signs prohibited right turns. The officer followed 

the car, and after seeing it swerve in and out of its lane three times, pulled 

the car over. The officer spoke with the driver—identified as Begay—and 

asked for his driver’s license, registration, and proof of insurance. Begay 

responded that he had lost his license and instead handed the officer his 

military identification card. 

¶4 Noting that Begay had bloodshot, watery eyes, the officer 

asked if he had been drinking, and Begay responded that he had three 

beers. Because the officer had only basic training in field sobriety testing, 

he called for another officer with more training and certification to conduct 

a DUI investigation. When he arrived, the second officer noted that Begay 

had a strong odor of alcohol on his breath and slurred speech. The officer 

conducted three field sobriety tests, but Begay failed each. The officer 

consequently arrested Begay. After the arrest, one of the officers checked 

Begay’s record and learned that his license was suspended. 

¶5 The first officer placed Begay in his patrol car and drove him 

to a police DUI van to draw a blood sample. Begay initially refused to 
STATE v. BEGAY 

Decision of the Court 

3

provide consent for the draw, so officers sought and obtained a warrant to 

do so. The officers then drew a blood sample, and test results later showed 

that Begay’s blood alcohol concentration (“BAC”) was .203 at the time of 

the draw. The State charged him with aggravated driving while under the 

influence with a suspended license and aggravated driving with a BAC of 

.08 or more with a suspended license. 

¶6 Before trial, the State offered Begay a plea agreement of one 

count of endangerment and one count of driving while under the influence 

of alcohol, which Begay accepted. However, the State later requested to 

withdraw from the agreement after discovering that Begay had more priors 

than he avowed. The trial court granted the State’s request, reinstated 

Begay’s plea of not guilty to the original charges, and set the matter for trial. 

¶7 On the fourth day of Begay’s jury trial, his counsel did not 

appear, but notified the trial court that she had a personal emergency. The 

trial court discussed defense counsel’s illness with the parties and 

continued the trial for one week. But due to her medical issues, defense 

counsel did not appear the following week, and the trial court, on its own 

motion, declared a mistrial and set the matter for a new trial.

¶8 At the subsequent jury trial, defense counsel moved for an 

evaluation of Begay’s competency pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal 

Procedure 11.2, which provides that a party may make such a request to 

determine the defendant’s competency to stand trial. Counsel argued that 

Begay was depressed and unable to think straight or follow along during 

the trial, but the trial court denied the motion. After the State rested its case 

in chief, defense counsel moved for an Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 

20 judgment of acquittal, but the trial court denied that motion as well. 

¶9 After deliberating, the jurors reached a verdict but incorrectly 

filled out only one of the two verdict forms. The trial court sent the jurors 

back to fill out the other form and instructed them to “not mention anything 

to anyone about what your decisions is.” The jurors later returned and 

convicted Begay of aggravated driving while under the influence with a 

suspended license and aggravated driving with a BAC of .08 or more with 

a suspended license. The trial court subsequently sentenced Begay to four 

months’ imprisonment with 32 days’ presentence incarceration credit for 

felony DUI, but for each conviction suspended sentencing and imposed 

concurrent terms of three years’ supervised probation. The trial court 

advised Begay of his right to appeal within 20 days.
STATE v. BEGAY 

Decision of the Court 

4

¶10 Despite the trial court’s advisement, Begay did not timely file 

his appeal. He later petitioned for post-conviction relief pursuant to 

Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(f), which provides that a 

defendant may request such relief when failure to file a timely notice of 

appeal was without fault of his own. Finding good cause, the trial court 

granted relief and allowed Begay an additional 20 days to file an appeal. 

However, due to an administrative error Begay again did not timely file his 

appeal, but requested that the trial court re-issue its order to allow him 

more time. The trial court granted Begay an additional 20 days to file this 

appeal, which he did. 

DISCUSSION 

¶11 We review Begay’s convictions and sentences for 

fundamental error. See State v. Gendron, 168 Ariz. 153, 155, 812 P.2d 626, 628 

(1991). 

¶12 Counsel for Begay has advised this Court that after a diligent 

search of the entire record, he 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, 451 P.2d at 881. We find none. All 

of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules 

of Criminal Procedure. So far as the record reveals, Begay was represented 

by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, and the sentence imposed was 

within the statutory limits. We decline to order briefing, and we affirm 

Begay’s convictions and sentences. 

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

Begay of the status of his appeal and of his future options. Defense 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, 684 P.2d 154, 

156–57 (1984). Begay shall have 30 days from the date of this decision to 

proceed, if he desires, with a pro per motion for reconsideration or a 

petition for review. 
STATE v. BEGAY 

Decision of the Court 

5

CONCLUSION 

¶14 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.