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

(Not for Publication — Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court)

GOULD, Judge

¶1 Kiko Flores (defendant) appeals from his convictions and the sentences imposed for two counts of aggravated driving or actual physical control while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs ("DUI"), class four felonies. Defendant was sentenced on July 23, 2010 and was granted the right to file a delayed appeal. Defendant's 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 this Court that after a search of the entire appellate record, no arguable ground exists for reversal. Defendant was granted leave to file a supplemental brief in propria persona on or before December 24, 2012, and did not do so.

¶2 Our obligation in this appeal is to review "the entire record for reversible error." State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d 89, 96 (App. 1999). We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") sections 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031 and 13-4033(A)(1) (2013).1 Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History2

¶3 On January 27, 2009, defendant was charged with two counts of Aggravated DUI. Defendant failed to appear at a Review Hearing on April 27, 2009 and a Bench Warrant was issued. Defendant failed to appear at his trial, and was tried in absentia. The following evidence was presented at trial.

¶4 On July 27, 2008, Officer Achoa of the Phoenix Police Department noticed a vehicle without a license plate traveling at a high rate of speed. Officer Achoa conducted a traffic stop and, after coming into contact with the Defendant, "noticed an odor of alcohol" coming from Defendant, as well as the fact Defendant's "eyes were blood shot and watery." Officer Achoa further testified Defendant admitted he did not have a driver's license. When Officer Achoa asked Defendant if he had been drinking, Defendant replied, "yeah, five beers."

¶5 Defendant was arrested and booked into jail. After Defendant was booked into the jail, Officer McGillis performed a blood draw. While Officer McGillis was obtaining some of Defendant's biographical information, he noticed Defendant's speech was slurred and that he exhibited "mood swings." Officer McGillis also observed that Defendant's eyes were red and watery, and that Defendant emitted a strong odor of alcohol. Officer McGillis asked Defendant if his license was suspended, canceled or revoked, and Defendant replied his license was suspended. Defendant also told Officer McGillis that he was notified of the suspension by the Motor Vehicle Division. Officer McGillis further testified that Defendant admitted he had consumed five beers earlier in the evening.

¶6 At trial, Amanda Gallegos, a forensic scientist from the Phoenix Crime Lab, testified that Defendant's blood alcohol content was .264. In addition, Jack Owens, Jr. of the Arizona Motor Vehicle Division, testified that defendant's driver's license had been suspended on October 10, 1995, and there were 10 subsequent suspensions. Defendant's latest suspension was on May 14, 2002, and Defendant did not apply to renew his license after that date.

¶7 After a three-day trial, the jury found defendant guilty as charged. The trial court sentenced defendant to a term of eight months imprisonment as to each count, each count to be served concurrently.

Discussion

¶8 We have read and considered the entire record and have found no meritorious grounds for reversal of Defendant's conviction or for modification of the sentence imposed. Clark, 196 Ariz. at 541, ¶ 50, 2 P.3d at 100. Defendant voluntarily absented himself from trial and was tried in absentia. Defendant was represented by counsel. Defendant was given an opportunity to speak before sentencing, and the sentences imposed were within statutory limits. All proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure and substantial evidence supported the finding of guilt. Accordingly, we affirm.

Conclusion

¶9 Counsel's obligations pertaining to Defendant's representation in this appeal have ended. Counsel need do nothing 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. State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984). Defendant shall have thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he so desires, with an in propria persona motion for reconsideration or petition for review.

PATRICIA K. NORRIS, Presiding Judge, RANDALL M. HOWE, Judge, concurring.