State v. Cantu, No. 1
| Court | Court of Appeals of Arizona |
| Writing for the Court | DONOFRIO; JACOBSON, P. J., Department C, and OGG |
| Citation | 569 P.2d 298,116 Ariz. 356 |
| Docket Number | CA-CR,No. 1 |
| Decision Date | 25 August 1977 |
| Parties | STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Joe Alonzo CANTU, Appellant. 2257. |
Page 298
v.
Joe Alonzo CANTU, Appellant.
[116 Ariz. 357]
Page 299
Bruce E. Babbitt, Atty. Gen. by William J. Schafer, III, Chief Counsel, Crim. Div., Teresa S. Thayer, Asst. Attys. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee.Hendrickson & Gadzia by William H. Gadzia, Mesa, for appellant.
DONOFRIO, Judge.
Appellant Joe Cantu was tried before a Maricopa County Jury and convicted of driving while under the influence of an intoxicating beverage while his license was revoked (in violation of A.R.S. §§ 28-692 and 28-692.02). A sentence of one year in the Maricopa County Jail was imposed and this appeal from the conviction and sentence followed.
On February 26, 1976 at approximately 10:10 p.m. Officer Capehart observed a 1971 Buick automobile proceeding east on the Maricopa Freeway in the vicinity of 7th Avenue. Capehart followed the vehicle for about one mile and saw it continuously weave from the right edge to the left edge of the right-hand lane, occasionally striking the lane divider. Officer Capehart activated his emergency lights and the Buick stopped in the emergency parking lane whereupon the driver and the passenger sitting next to him exchanged positions. Appellant, who was the driver of the vehicle during Capehart's surveillance, was advised of his Miranda 1 rights and given a field sobriety test after admitting that he did not have a driver's license in his possession. He failed the test and in light of this and other evidence of intoxication was arrested and taken to the stationhouse where a breathalizer test was administered and resulted in a .16% blood-alcohol reading.
In this appeal Cantu argues that there was insufficient evidence presented at the preliminary hearing to constitute probable cause, that the breathalizer results were erroneously admitted into evidence at trial, and that his sentence is excessive.
When the magistrate entered an order holding appellant to answer before the Superior Court on the instant charge, appellant timely moved for new finding of probable cause pursuant to 17 A.R.S., Rules of Criminal Procedure, rule 5.5, alleging that there was no credible evidence of guilt adduced at the initial hearing. The trial court correctly denied the motion as the preliminary hearing transcript discloses that with the exception of the breathalizer reading the evidence upon which appellant was convicted was substantially the same as that introduced at the preliminary hearing. Officer Capehart's testimony at the preliminary hearing was more than ample to constitute[116 Ariz. 358]
Page 300
probable cause and most certainly constituted some credible evidence of appellant's guilt. Therefore, the Superior Court's refusal to grant a new preliminary hearing was...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Canaday, No. 45309
...State v. Olderman, 44 Ohio App.2d 130, 336 N.E.2d 442 (1975); Commonwealth v. Topa, 471 Pa. 223, 369 A.2d 1277 (1977). 3 State v. Cantu, 116 Ariz. 356, 569 P.2d 298 (1977); People v. Hedrick, 557 P.2d 378 (Colo.1976); People v. Godbout, 42 Ill.App.3d 1001, 1 Ill.Dec. 583, 356 N.E.2d 865 (19......
-
State v. Booth, No. 79-1548
...However, our review[98 Wis.2d 29] of those decisions finds them to be distinguishable from the matter before us. In State v. Cantu, 116 Ariz. 356, 569 P.2d 298 (1977); People v. Hedrick, 557 P.2d 378 (Colo.1976); and People v. Stark, 73 Mich.App. 332, 251 N.W.2d 574 (1977), the requests for......
-
State v. Gum, No. 1 CA-CR 06-0683 PRPC.
...court if the result is legally correct for any reason. State v. Perez, 141 Ariz. 459, 464, 687 P.2d 1214, 1219 (1984); State v. Cantu, 116 Ariz. 356, 358, 569 P.2d 298, 300 4. Taylor's case was consolidated with Johnson v. Aragon, 1 CA-SA 2006-0078. 5. The 1997 amendment became effective Ju......
-
State v. Helmer, No. 12578
...result is sufficient protection of an accused's due process rights. State v. Shutt, 116 N.H. 495, 363 A.2d 406 (1976); State v. Cantu, 116 Ariz. 356, 569 P.2d 298 We next consider the admissibility of breathalyzer test results in general. At the suppression hearing, appellant contended that......
-
State v. Canaday, No. 45309
...State v. Olderman, 44 Ohio App.2d 130, 336 N.E.2d 442 (1975); Commonwealth v. Topa, 471 Pa. 223, 369 A.2d 1277 (1977). 3 State v. Cantu, 116 Ariz. 356, 569 P.2d 298 (1977); People v. Hedrick, 557 P.2d 378 (Colo.1976); People v. Godbout, 42 Ill.App.3d 1001, 1 Ill.Dec. 583, 356 N.E.2d 865 (19......
-
State v. Booth, No. 79-1548
...However, our review[98 Wis.2d 29] of those decisions finds them to be distinguishable from the matter before us. In State v. Cantu, 116 Ariz. 356, 569 P.2d 298 (1977); People v. Hedrick, 557 P.2d 378 (Colo.1976); and People v. Stark, 73 Mich.App. 332, 251 N.W.2d 574 (1977), the requests for......
-
State v. Gum, No. 1 CA-CR 06-0683 PRPC.
...court if the result is legally correct for any reason. State v. Perez, 141 Ariz. 459, 464, 687 P.2d 1214, 1219 (1984); State v. Cantu, 116 Ariz. 356, 358, 569 P.2d 298, 300 4. Taylor's case was consolidated with Johnson v. Aragon, 1 CA-SA 2006-0078. 5. The 1997 amendment became effective Ju......
-
State v. Helmer, No. 12578
...result is sufficient protection of an accused's due process rights. State v. Shutt, 116 N.H. 495, 363 A.2d 406 (1976); State v. Cantu, 116 Ariz. 356, 569 P.2d 298 We next consider the admissibility of breathalyzer test results in general. At the suppression hearing, appellant contended that......