State v. Jimenez, 1 CA-CR 16-0529

On Nov. 26, 2012, Ruben Jimenez was stopped for a traffic violation, arrested for driving on a suspended license, and later admitted to drinking and using heroin; a blood draw showed methamphetamine, morphine, and hydrocodone.
Prosecuted for aggravated DUI (driving while under the influence and while license suspended), Jimenez testified and denied knowing his license was suspended, asserting identity theft prevented receipt of DMV notices.
DMV records showed six suspension notices mailed to Jimenez over seven years, including one sent while he was incarcerated.
Before deliberations the court gave: (1) a jury instruction reflecting the statutory rebuttable presumption that mailing by DMV establishes notice, and (2) a voluntary intoxication instruction stating voluntary intoxication is not a defense.
The jury convicted Jimenez of aggravated DUI; he was sentenced to 8 years and appealed, arguing the notice presumption and intoxication instruction violated his due process and confused the jury.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether A.R.S. § 28-3318's rebuttable presumption of notice (mailing = receipt) violates due process	State: statute creates permissive presumption; mailing to record address permits inference of notice; jury decides rebuttal	Jimenez: presumption deprived him of due process by effectively proving knowledge without actual receipt	Court: Presumption permissible; does not violate due process when rebuttable; jury properly resolved dispute about receipt
Whether giving the voluntary intoxication instruction was error/confusing	State: instruction correctly states law that voluntary intoxication is not a defense	Jimenez: instruction could have confused jury into thinking his lack of knowledge of suspension was inexcusable	Court: No developed argument or evidence of actual jury confusion; claim not properly developed and not addressed further

State v. Church, 175 Ariz. 104 (App. 1993) (upholding permissive presumption of notice from mailed DMV suspension notice)
State v. Cifelli, 214 Ariz. 524 (App. 2007) (defendant may rebut DMV-mailing presumption by showing nonreceipt)
Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (2006) (due process requires notice reasonably calculated to inform; notice methods must be reasonably calculated to provide actual notice)
State v. Clemons, 110 Ariz. 555 (1974) (appellate courts will not second-guess jury determinations of witness credibility on receipt issues)
State v. Tarr, 235 Ariz. 288 (App. 2014) (standard of review: instruction decisions reviewed for abuse of discretion; correctness of instruction reviewed de novo)