State v. Trapp, 1 CA-CR 20-0508

On March 18, 2018, Mesa police responded to a welfare check and found Trapp asleep in the driver’s seat of a running vehicle with the driver-side doors open.
Trapp was groggy, had slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, smelled of alcohol, and told officers she had “a couple shots of vodka.”
Officers found three bottles of vodka in the vehicle; Trapp consented to a blood draw that showed a .201 BAC.
At arrest, Trapp’s license was suspended and she had two prior DUI convictions within the prior nine months.
Trapp was charged with four DUI counts, tried for three days, and the jury convicted on all counts; the court imposed concurrent four-month sentences (34 days credit) and three years’ supervised probation.
Defense counsel filed an Anders/Leon brief identifying no non-frivolous appellate issues; Trapp did not file a pro se supplemental brief. The appellate court reviewed for fundamental error and affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for DUI convictions	State: BAC .201, physical control of running vehicle, intoxication signs and open alcohol bottles support convictions	None raised on appeal	Court: Evidence supports the jury verdicts; no reversible error
Legality of detention, arrest, inventory search, and blood draw	State: Officers lawfully responded to welfare check, arrested for DUI, conducted inventory, and obtained consent for blood draw	None raised on appeal	Court: No error found in arrest, inventory, or blood-draw procedure
Jury composition and trial procedure (jury misconduct, instructions)	State: Trial complied with rules; properly instructed jury of elements and burden	None raised on appeal	Court: Jury properly seated; instructions and procedures proper; no misconduct
Sentencing and right to allocution/credit	State: Sentences within statutory ranges; allocution provided; credit applied	None raised on appeal	Court: Sentences lawful and within guidelines; affirmed

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedural standard for counsel’s withdrawal when no non-frivolous issues exist)
State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969) (appellate review when counsel finds no arguable issues)
State v. Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229 (App. 1998) (standard of review—view facts in light most favorable to sustaining verdict)
State v. Flores, 227 Ariz. 509 (App. 2011) (appellate duty to review record for reversible error under Leon)
State v. Bohn, 116 Ariz. 500 (1977) (defendant must be present and represented at critical stages)
State v. Conner, 163 Ariz. 97 (1990) (same—presence and counsel at critical stages)
State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582 (1984) (counsel’s post-appeal obligations and client notification)