State v. Alshammari

NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL
AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE
ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee,

v.

EBRIHAM ALSHAMMARI, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 24-0651
FILED 05-21-2026

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2023-106970-001
The Honorable Utiki Spurling Laing, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Alice Jones
Counsel for Appellee

The Susser Law Firm, PLLC, Chandler
By Adam Susser
Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. ALSHAMMARI
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Andrew J. Becke delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Kent E. Cattani joined.

B E C K E, Judge:

¶1 This is an appeal filed in accordance with Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969). Counsel for
Ebrahim Alshammari has advised this court that he found no arguable
question of law and asks us to search the record for reversible error.
Alshammari was convicted of one count of aggravated driving or actual
physical control while under the influence of drugs (“DUI”), impaired to
the slightest degree, and one count of aggravated DUI while his license to
drive was suspended, both Class 4 felony offenses. Alshammari was given
an opportunity to file a supplemental brief; he has not done so. After
reviewing the record, we affirm Alshammari’s convictions and sentences.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the
convictions and resolve all reasonable inferences against Alshammari. See
State v. Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230, ¶ 2 (App. 1998).

¶3 On March 19, 2022, an officer with the Tempe Police
Department responded to a report of a male passed out inside a vehicle.
When the officer arrived, he found a vehicle with its headlights and brake
lights on, the dash lights illuminated, and the keys in the ignition. He could
hear the engine idling, the car was in drive, and the tires were facing the
road. Alshammari was sitting in the driver’s seat slumped over the steering
wheel.

¶4 The officer began a DUI investigation and contacted a traffic
officer to assist. When the traffic officer arrived, he saw that Alshammari
was swaying, could not stand still, and had a coarse voice, which the officer
believed could be due to drug use. Based on Alshammari’s presentation
and results of field testing, he was handcuffed and transported for a blood
draw. Alshammari was charged with two counts of aggravated DUI, both
Class 4 felonies.

2
STATE v. ALSHAMMARI
Decision of the Court

¶5 At trial, the State presented testimony from the forensic
toxicologist who tested Alshammari’s blood, a phlebotomist who drew his
blood, two law enforcement officers involved in Alshammari’s case, and
the Arizona Motor Vehicle Division (“MVD”) custodian of records. The
forensic toxicologist testified that Alshammari’s blood contained
methamphetamine and amphetamine. The MVD custodian of records
affirmed that Alshammari’s license was suspended on the date of the
offense and that he had been mailed notice of the suspension.

¶6 The jury found Alshammari guilty as charged. The trial court
conducted the sentencing hearing in compliance with Alshammari’s
constitutional rights and Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 26. The
parties stipulated that Alshammari had two prior felony convictions. The
court considered the mitigating factors of Alshammari’s family support,
mental health history, and substance abuse history. It also considered the
aggravating factors of his criminal history and that he was on release.

¶7 The court sentenced Alshammari to the presumptive term of
10 years in prison with 610 days of presentence incarceration credit in both
counts, to run concurrently. The court also imposed fines and fees totaling
$4,684.

DISCUSSION

¶8 Our review reveals no reversible error. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at
300. All proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules
of Criminal Procedure. Alshammari was represented by counsel at all
stages of the proceedings, and he was present at all critical stages. See State
v. Conner, 163 Ariz. 97, 104 (1990) (right to counsel at critical stages); State v.
Bohn, 116 Ariz. 500, 503 (1977) (right to be present at critical stages).

¶9 The jury was properly comprised of eight jurors and two
alternates, and the record shows no evidence of juror misconduct. See A.R.S.
§ 21-102; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 18.1(a). The superior court properly instructed
the jury on the elements of the charged offenses, the State’s burden of proof,
and Alshammari’s presumption of innocence. At sentencing, Alshammari
was given an opportunity to speak, and the court stated on the record what
it considered in imposing the sentence. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 26.9, 26.10. The
sentences imposed were within the statutory limits. See A.R.S. § 13-703(J); §
28-1383(A)(1). The court properly advised Alshammari of his right to
appeal, right to petition for post-conviction relief, and right to file an
application to set aside the judgment. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 26.11.

3
STATE v. ALSHAMMARI
Decision of the Court

CONCLUSION

¶10 We affirm Alshammari’s convictions and sentences. Unless
defense counsel finds an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona
Supreme Court by petition for review, his obligations regarding
Alshammari’s appeal will end after informing him of the outcome of this
appeal and his future options. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584–85
(1984).

¶11 Alshammari has 30 days from the date of this decision to
proceed, if he desires, with a pro se motion for reconsideration or petition
for review to the Arizona Supreme Court. See Ariz. R. Crim. P.
31.21(b)(2)(A).

MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court
FILED: JR

4