State v. Vittera
1 CA-CR 17-0292
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Dec 14, 2017Background
- Early morning after St. Patrick’s Day 2015, Vittera’s car rolled into the rear of another vehicle; both drivers went to a nearby gas station.
- Observations at the scene: Vittera stumbled, had balance problems, smelled of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot/watery eyes; he wore event wristband and Mardi Gras-style beads with a shot glass.
- Police arrested Vittera; blood was drawn about 2 hours 45 minutes after the collision and showed a BAC of .203.
- Jury convicted Vittera of two counts of aggravated driving under the influence (Class 4 felonies under A.R.S. §§ 28-1381 and -1383).
- Superior court found multiple prior felony and DUI convictions and sentenced Vittera to 12 years’ incarceration (with 249 days’ credit).
- Appeal was prosecuted under Anders procedures; appellate counsel found no nonfrivolous issues and the court reviewed the record for fundamental error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to support DUI convictions | State: direct and circumstantial evidence (observations, BAC) support convictions | Vittera: (no supplemental brief filed; implicitly challenges sufficiency) | Court: Evidence sufficient; convictions affirmed |
| Pretrial and trial fairness (representation, hearings, jury instructions) | State: proceedings and instructions were proper | Vittera: no viable challenge raised on appeal | Court: Defendant received a fair trial; procedures proper |
| Jury size and sentencing exposure | State: 8-member jury verdicts valid; court limited sentencing accordingly | Vittera: argued nothing on record | Court: Jury unanimity and polling confirmed; sentencing within legal limits |
| Anders appellate review compliance | Appellate counsel: complied with Anders/Leon; no nonfrivolous issues found | Vittera: did not file supplemental brief | Court: Counsel fulfilled obligations; appellate court conducted independent review and found no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedure for counsel who believes appeal is frivolous)
- Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (U.S. 2000) (standards for Anders-type brief and appellate counsel duties)
- State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (Ariz. 1969) (Arizona’s procedure for counsel finding appeal frivolous)
- State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999) (Anders-related appellate practice in Arizona)
- State v. Soliz, 223 Ariz. 116 (Ariz. 2009) (effect of jury size on sentencing exposure)
- State v. Payne, 233 Ariz. 484 (Ariz. 2013) (viewing facts in light most favorable to sustaining verdict)
- State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582 (Ariz. 1984) (counsel’s post-appeal duties and defendant’s options for review)