THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24

MEMORANDUM DECISION

PHILIP HALL, Judge.

¶1 Kiko Flores (defendant) appeals from his convictions and the sentences imposed. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

¶2 Defendant's appellate counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), advising that, after a diligent search of the record, he was unable to find any arguable grounds for reversal. This court granted defendant an opportunity to file a supplemental brief, which he has not done. See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d 89, 96 (App. 1999).

¶3 We review for fundamental error, error that goes to the foundation of a case or takes from the defendant a right essential to his defense. See State v. King, 158 Ariz. 419, 424, 763 P.2d 239, 244 (1988). We view the evidence presented at trial in a light most favorable to sustaining the verdict. State v. Cropper, 205 Ariz. 181, 182, ¶ 2, 68 P.3d 407, 408 (2003).

¶4 On December 9, 2008, defendant was charged by direct complaint with two counts of aggravated driving or actual physical control while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs, class four felonies. On the first day of trial, the state filed its information, mirroring the charges as initially set forth in the direct complaint.1

¶5 The following evidence was presented at trial. On March 3, 2002, Hector Manrique, an employee of Simco USA (Simco), walked into Simco's security office and watched on the security camera as a car "smash[ed]" into the security gate. Immediately, Manrique went to the scene and observed a vehicle with no rear end and a person standing on the side of the car.

¶6 Officer Michael Spykes of the Phoenix Police Department responded to a report of a vehicle accident. Officer Spykes observed a "silver colored Nissan four-door that had been involved with a collision with the security gate." The officer observed defendant leaning against the driver's side of the vehicle. When Officer Spykes contacted defendant, he observed that defendant had some "difficulty with his balance, his speech was slurred" and the officer "detect[ed] . . . a moderate odor" of alcohol. The officer then performed some field sobriety tests on defendant and observed six out of six cues of impairment. He also attempted two additional tests: "the one leg stand and the walk and turn." Defendant, however, was unable to comply, and for safety reasons, the officer stopped the tests. In addition, defendant informed the officer that his driver license had been suspended.

¶7 The surveillance video taken from the scene depicts a vehicle striking the security fence, the driver exiting the vehicle and examining the rear tire area of the vehicle, and then reentering the vehicle and striking the fence again.

¶8 Officer William Bennett of the Phoenix Police Department conducted two breath tests on defendant. The first test registered a breath alcohol concentration of .216 and the second test registered a breath alcohol concentration of .227.

¶9 Michael Acres of the Arizona Motor Vehicle Division testified that defendant's driver license had seven suspensions as of March 3, 2002. He further testified that defendant had not resolved any of those suspensions.

¶10 After a three-day trial, the jury found defendant guilty as charged. The trial court sentenced defendant to a term of four months imprisonment and five years of probation on each count, to be served concurrently.

¶11 We have read and considered counsel's brief and have searched the entire 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. Defendant was given an opportunity to speak before sentencing, and the sentences imposed were within statutory limits. Furthermore, based on our review of the record, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that defendant committed the offenses for which he was convicted.

¶12 After the filing of this decision, counsel's obligations pertaining to defendant's representation in this appeal have ended. Counsel need do no more than inform defendant of the status of the appeal and his future options, unless counsel's review reveals 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). Defendant has thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro per motion for reconsideration or petition for review. Accordingly, defendant's convictions and sentences are affirmed.

PATRICIA A. OROZCO, Presiding Judge, JOHN C. GEMMILL, Judge, concurring.