State v. Gunter, 110719 AZAPP2, 2 CA-CR 2019-0006
|Docket Nº:||2 CA-CR 2019-0006|
|Opinion Judge:||BREARCLIFFE, JUDGE|
|Party Name:||The State of Arizona, Appellee, v. Lanny Dale Gunter, Appellant.|
|Attorney:||Mark Brnovich, Arizona Attorney General Joseph T. Maziarz, Chief Counsel By Tanja K. Kelly, Assistant Attorney General, Tucson Counsel for Appellee Harriette P. Levitt Counsel for Appellant|
|Judge Panel:||Judge Brearcliffe authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Staring and Chief Judge Vásquez concurred.|
|Case Date:||November 07, 2019|
|Court:||Court of Appeals of Arizona|
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Pinal County No. S1100CR201700831 The Honorable Joseph R. Georgini, Judge
Mark Brnovich, Arizona Attorney General Joseph T. Maziarz, Chief Counsel By Tanja K. Kelly, Assistant Attorney General, Tucson Counsel for Appellee
Harriette P. Levitt Counsel for Appellant
Judge Brearcliffe authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Staring and Chief Judge Vásquez concurred.
¶1 Lanny Gunter appeals from his convictions after a jury trial on two counts of aggravated driving under the influence of an intoxicant while license was suspended. The trial court imposed concurrent, presumptive prison terms of 4.5 years on each count. In this appeal, Gunter does not dispute that, at the time of the incident, his driver license was suspended or that his blood-alcohol concentration met any required threshold level for the offenses. Gunter asserts only that the state presented no evidence, other than his own statements, that he drove or was in actual physical control of a vehicle. Therefore, he contends, there was insufficient evidence to sustain a guilty verdict because the state failed to establish corpus delicti. The state contends there was substantial and sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction. The issue is whether there was sufficient evidence beyond Gunter's admissions to support the jury's verdicts. We affirm.
Factual and Procedural Background
¶2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to upholding the jury's verdicts. State v. Payne, 233 Ariz. 484, ¶ 76 (2013). In October 2016, while working the 9:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift as store manager at a convenience store, D.G. saw a red van pull into the parking lot. D.G. could see a man alone in the van, sitting in the driver's seat. After approximately ten to fifteen minutes, the man got out of the driver's side of the van and walked into the store. He was "kind of swaying" and "not walking . . . in a straight line" and smelled of alcohol.
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP