Professional Documents
Culture Documents
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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
v.
ED EAGLEMAN, Appellant.
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Ed Eagleman
Appellant Pro Per
STATE v. EAGLEMAN
Decision of the Court
MEMORANDUM DECISION
M c M U R D I E, Judge:
1 Defendant also raised several other issues which he did not support
with facts or argument in his brief, including: whether the use of his twins
brothers name at a preliminary hearing prejudiced him, whether a
magistrates habitual procedure was used as a rubber stamp, whether
the actual arrest [was] conceded, whether the officers involved
committed perjury in submitting his implied consent form, and whether his
statements made to the grand jury were voluntary. We decline to consider
these issues due to the lack of supporting facts or argument. See ARCAP
Rule 13(a)(7); Ness v. W. Sec. Life Ins. Co., 174 Ariz. 497, 503 (App. 1992).
2
STATE v. EAGLEMAN
Decision of the Court
3
STATE v. EAGLEMAN
Decision of the Court
felonies. A jury trial was held and Defendant was found guilty of both
counts. Defendant stipulated to having three prior felony convictions and
was sentenced to the presumptive term of 10 years on both counts, to be
served concurrently, with a presentence incarceration credit of 212 days.
Defendant timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
4
STATE v. EAGLEMAN
Decision of the Court
McMahon, 201 Ariz. 548, 551, 7 (App. 2002). Section 28-1388(E) provides
clear and definite language allowing law enforcement, with probable cause,
to obtain a sample of a suspects bodily fluids, if taken for any reason.
Therefore, we find that the statute is not unconstitutionally vague.
Defendant maintains the language in the statute stating law enforcement is
provided a sample if requested is vague, because in this case Officer
Barlow was merely present in the trauma room and did not actually request
a sample. However, Officer Barlow provided the vials for the phlebotomist
to fill with blood, therefore the officer was clearly requesting a sample.2
CONCLUSION
5
STATE v. EAGLEMAN
Decision of the Court
Supreme Court by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582,
58485 (1984). On the courts own motion, Defendant 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.