State v. Hargett
1 CA-CR 16-0621
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Nov 10, 2016Background
- On Feb. 19, 2013, Chandler police contacted a woman in a green Honda; she was later identified as Lisa Hargett and appeared confused when asked for ID.
- Officers observed signs of impairment, arrested Hargett for DUI, and obtained a consensual blood draw at 10:49 a.m.; investigators found two smoking pipes in the vehicle.
- Hargett admitted prior methamphetamine use the previous evening and use of prescribed carisoprodol; blood testing showed methamphetamine/amphetamine, pseudoephedrine, clonazepam, meprobamate, and butalbital.
- A drug-recognition expert testified the drug combination (CNS depressants and stimulants) and observed signs (including HGN) supported impairment to at least the slightest degree; some stimulant levels were well above therapeutic range.
- Hargett disputed she was driving, claimed she was the passenger, and contended prescription drugs and other non-drug causes explained the observations; jury convicted her on two counts of aggravated DUI based on impairment and the fact her license was suspended from a prior DUI.
- Trial court sentenced Hargett to four months’ imprisonment and three years’ probation; on appeal appointed counsel found no non-frivolous issues and requested a record review under Anders/Leon; Hargett declined to file a pro se brief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for aggravated DUI (impairment and drugs present) | State: blood tests, drug-recognition testimony, and observed signs support impairment and presence of listed drugs/metabolites | Hargett: insufficient proof she was driving or impaired; chain-of-custody flaws; drugs were prescribed/not impairing | Affirmed — evidence supported that drugs/metabolites were present and that she was impaired to the slightest degree while driving (or in actual physical control) and her license was suspended |
| Chain of custody and Rule 20 acquittal motion | State: chain and testing admissible to prove presence of drugs | Hargett: challenged chain and lack of proof of impairment; moved for acquittal at close of State’s case | Denied — court found sufficient admissible evidence to submit to jury |
| Right to counsel and presence at critical stages; jury composition and misconduct | State: proceedings complied with rules; Hargett represented and waived presence for two mornings; eight-juror jury lawfully seated | Hargett: no viable claim raised on appeal | No reversible error — procedural safeguards observed |
| Sentencing challenges (record and statutory limits) | State: sentence within statutory limits; court considered proper factors | Hargett: no preserved sentencing error raised on appeal | Affirmed — court articulated factors, allowed allocution, sentence lawful |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedural standard when counsel finds appeal frivolous)
- State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969) (Arizona standard endorsing court’s exhaustive record review for frivolous appeals)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (requirement to advise suspects of rights before custodial interrogation)
- State v. Harm, 236 Ariz. 402 (App. 2015) (viewing facts in light most favorable to sustaining convictions)
- State v. Valencia, 186 Ariz. 493 (App. 1996) (same standard for viewing evidence on appeal)
- State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582 (1984) (counsel’s duties after an Anders-type appeal and appellant’s options for petitioning for review)