Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2018-0221
07-17-2019
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. AALBERT F. WIJERS, Appellant.
COUNSEL Vanessa C. Moss, Tucson Counsel for Appellant
THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.19(e). Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County
No. CR20162693001
The Honorable Gus Aragon, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL Vanessa C. Moss, Tucson
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Espinosa authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Eppich and Judge Eckerstrom concurred. ESPINOSA, Judge:
¶1 After a jury trial, Aalbert Wijers was convicted of two counts of aggravated driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI), specifically: DUI having had two or more DUI violations in the preceding eighty-four months and driving with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .08 or greater having two or more DUI violations in the previous eighty-four months. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent, ten-year prison terms for each offense.
Wijers was originally indicted as "Frank Albert Wyers," but at sentencing the court ordered that the caption reflect the correct legal spelling of his name, "Aalbert F. Wijers."
¶2 Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530 (App. 1999), stating she has reviewed the record but found "no meritorious appellate issues," and asks this court to review the record for fundamental error. Wijers has filed a supplemental brief, arguing his constitutional rights were violated and he is "actual[ly] innocent" because his previous DUI convictions resulted from the same proceeding and, relatedly, that his sentences are improper.
As Wijers acknowledges, his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel cannot be raised on appeal. See State v. Spreitz, 202 Ariz. 1, ¶ 9 (2002). --------
¶3 Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury's verdicts, see State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2 (App. 1999), the evidence is sufficient to support its verdicts here, see A.R.S. §§ 28-1381(A)(1), (2), 28-1383(A)(2). In March 2016, Wijers crashed his truck into a fence. He admitted having been drinking that day and exhibited signs of intoxication, and testing of his blood showed his BAC to be .229 within two hours of driving. He has previously been convicted of DUI offenses committed in April and December 2009. The evidence supports the trial court's finding that his previous convictions were felonies, and the sentences imposed are within the statutory range. See A.R.S. §§ 13-703(C), (J), 28-1383(O)(1). We have reviewed the issues Wijers identifies in his supplemental brief and have determined they are not arguable issues requiring further briefing. See State v. Thompson, 229 Ariz. 43, ¶ 3 (App. 2012).
¶4 We have searched the record for reversible error, including the purported errors Wijers identified in his supplemental brief, and have found none. We therefore affirm Wijers's convictions and sentences.