State of Arizona v. Javier Solis, 236 Ariz. 242

Solis was convicted after a jury trial of criminal damage, endangerment, DUI with BAC .08, extreme DUI with BAC .15, and extreme DUI with BAC .20; sentences were enhanced, presumptive, concurrent terms.
The State offered an ADOC pen pack as documentary proof of Solis’s two historical prior felony convictions for sentence enhancement.
Soliss objected to admitting the pen pack as self-authenticating; the trial court admitted it as self-authenticating under Rule 902(8).
At the time of the April 2011 accident, Solis’s blood alcohol was found to be .24 after a hospital draw; Miranda warnings were given.
The pen pack contained an Automated Summary Report, a photograph, a fingerprint card, and an in-state exemplification signed by an ADOC administrator and notarized, purporting to certify the entire pack as true and correct.
On appeal, Solis argued the pen pack’s notarization (jurat) did not satisfy Rule 902(8) and that the pen pack alone could not prove two prior felonies; he also challenged the conviction on double jeopardy grounds for lesser-included offenses.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of pen pack under Rule 902(8)	Solis contends the pen pack is not self-authenticating because the notary performed a jurat, not an acknowledgment.	State asserts the jurat suffices, and the entire pen pack is incorporated and authenticated by the exemplification.	Pen pack properly admitted; jurat fulfilled acknowledgment purpose; notary authenticated the signature and contents.
Sufficiency of evidence of two historical prior felonies	Solis claims evidence insufficient to prove two prior felonies beyond a reasonable doubt.	State maintains pen pack alone (and accompanying materials) adequately proves two prior convictions.	Pen pack alone sufficient to prove two historical prior felonies for sentence enhancement.
Double jeopardy for BAC .08 and .15 offenses	These offenses are lesser-included of the .20 offense; convictions should be vacated.	State concedes but Solis argues for review of fundamental error irrespective of concession.	Convictions for BAC .08 and .15 are vacated as lesser-included offenses of the .20 offense.

State v. Rutledge, 205 Ariz. 7 (Ariz. 2003) (review of evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion; appellate standard)
State v. Kearney, 206 Ariz. 547 (Ariz. App. 2003) (interpretation of court rules de novo)
State v. Robles, 213 Ariz. 268 (Ariz. App. 2006) (documentary evidence may suffice to prove prior convictions for sentencing)
State v. Hauss, 140 Ariz. 230 (Ariz. 1984) (proper procedure to establish prior convictions; documentary evidence preferred)
State v. Lee, 114 Ariz. 101 (Ariz. 1976) (establishing prior convictions via certified copies; credibility concerns)
State v. Trujillo, 227 Ariz. 314 (Ariz. App. 2011) (pen packs can be sufficient to prove prior convictions)
State v. Nash, 143 Ariz. 392 (Ariz. 1985) (documentation of prior judgments; support for documentary evidence rule)
State v. Lavers, 168 Ariz. 376 (Ariz. 1991) (evidence rules and proof standards for prior convictions)
State v. King, 213 Ariz. 632 (Ariz. App. 2006) (documentary authentication and evaluation of authenticity)
State v. Irving, 165 Ariz. 219 (Ariz. App. 1990) (competent authentication of documents; weigh reliability)