State v. Navarro, 100716 AZAPP2, 2 CA-CR 2016-0020

Docket Nº:2 CA-CR 2016-0020
Opinion Judge:ECKERSTROM, Chief Judge.
Party Name:The State of Arizona, Appellee, v. Javier Francisco Navarro, Appellant.
Attorney:Mark Brnovich, Arizona Attorney General Joseph T. Maziarz, Section Chief Counsel, Phoenix By Kathryn A. Damstra, Assistant Attorney General, Tucson Counsel for Appellee. Dean Brault, Pima County Legal Defender By Scott A. Martin and Alex Heveri, Assistant Legal Defenders, Tucson Counsel for Appel...
Judge Panel:Chief Judge Eckerstrom authored the opinion of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Vásquez and Judge Howard concurred.
Case Date:October 07, 2016
Court:Court of Appeals of Arizona
 
FREE EXCERPT

The State of Arizona, Appellee,

v.

Javier Francisco Navarro, Appellant.

No. 2 CA-CR 2016-0020

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Second Division

October 7, 2016

Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County No. CR20150757001 The Honorable Jane L. Eikleberry, Judge

Mark Brnovich, Arizona Attorney General Joseph T. Maziarz, Section Chief Counsel, Phoenix By Kathryn A. Damstra, Assistant Attorney General, Tucson Counsel for Appellee.

Dean Brault, Pima County Legal Defender By Scott A. Martin and Alex Heveri, Assistant Legal Defenders, Tucson Counsel for Appellant.

Chief Judge Eckerstrom authored the opinion of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Vásquez and Judge Howard concurred.

OPINION

ECKERSTROM, Chief Judge.

¶1 Following a jury trial, appellant Javier Navarro was convicted of four counts of aggravated driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI). The trial court sentenced him to concurrent terms of four months' incarceration, pursuant to A.R.S. § 28-1383(D), followed by concurrent five-year terms of probation. The sole issue Navarro raises on appeal is whether the results of his warrantless breath test should have been suppressed in light of State v. Valenzuela, 239 Ariz. 299, 371 P.3d 627 (2016). We affirm for the reasons that follow.

Factual and Procedural Background

¶2 We discuss only those facts relevant to the suppression ruling challenged on appeal. See State v. Smith, 228 Ariz. 126, ¶ 2, 263 P.3d 675, 676 (App. 2011).1 Navarro was arrested for DUI on February 15, 2015. At that time, a police officer read Navarro the same "admin per se" form that our supreme court later held to be invalid in Valenzuela, 239 Ariz. 299, ¶¶ 5, 22, 28, 371 P.3d at 629-30, 634, 636. Upon hearing the erroneous admonition that he was required by law to submit to blood or breath testing, Navarro agreed to submit to a breath test. The results revealed that his blood alcohol concentration was above 0.15. The trial court summarily denied Navarro's motion to suppress this evidence and, in January 2016, entered the judgment and sentence. This appeal followed.

Discussion

¶3 In his opening brief, Navarro...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP