State v. Esquerra, 1 CA-CR 15-0709

On June 26, 2010 police found Ronald John Esquerra asleep in the driver’s seat of a silver-gray vehicle after a citizen reported erratic driving and the vehicle running other cars off the road; the vehicle matched the registered address for Esquerra.
Officers smelled alcohol, Esquerra performed poorly on field sobriety tests, and he admitted to having “one beer.” He consented to breath tests at the station showing BAC between 0.174 and 0.175 within two hours of the initial observation.
Esquerra was charged with three class 4 felony counts: (1) aggravated DUI, (2) aggravated DUI with BAC ≥ 0.08, and (3) aggravated DUI with BAC ≥ 0.15 but < 0.20.
Esquerra attended pretrial proceedings and was warned that failing to appear at trial could result in a waiver; he did not appear at trial and the court proceeded in his absence under Arizona Rule Crim. P. 9.1.
An eight-member jury convicted Esquerra on all three counts; at sentencing the court treated him as a category two offender and imposed concurrent 3.5-year terms with credit for 39 days.
On appeal counsel filed an Anders brief; this court affirmed convictions and sentences on counts 1 and 3 but vacated conviction and sentence on count 2 due to double jeopardy (count 2 is a lesser included offense of count 3).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Esquerra’s absence at trial a valid waiver permitting trial in absentia?	Trial may proceed; Esquerra was warned and voluntarily absent.	Absence could infringe rights; court must ensure warnings were adequate.	Waiver valid: Esquerra was warned and voluntarily absent; proceeding in absence proper.
Was evidence sufficient to support convictions?	Breath tests, officer observations, field tests, and eyewitness report provided substantial evidence.	Evidence insufficient or unreliable.	Sufficient: evidence supported jury verdicts on counts 1 and 3.
Were jury composition and instructions proper?	Jury of eight properly empaneled and instructed on elements, presumption of innocence, burden, unanimity.	Procedural or instruction defects warranted reversal.	Proper: no error in jury size or instructions; trial fair.
Did convicting on both BAC-based counts violate double jeopardy?	State argued separate statutory counts justified convictions.	Esquerra argued duplicative punishment for same offense.	Vacated count 2: conviction/sentence for BAC ≥ 0.08 is a lesser included offense of the BAC ≥ 0.15 count; double jeopardy bars multiple punishments.

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedural framework when counsel finds appeal frivolous)
Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969) (appellate duty to search record for fundamental error when counsel files Anders-style brief)
Solis, 236 Ariz. 242 (App. 2014) (defining BAC-threshold offenses as potentially lesser included offenses)
Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582 (1984) (counsel’s post-appeal obligations when filing Anders brief)
Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289 (1989) (viewing facts in light most favorable to sustaining a jury verdict)