| "{\"id\": \"1236981\", \"name\": \"The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Angel Junior GONZALES, Appellant\", \"name_abbreviation\": \"State v. Gonzales\", \"decision_date\": \"1976-07-27\", \"docket_number\": \"No. 1 CA-CR 1580\", \"first_page\": \"308\", \"last_page\": \"309\", \"citations\": \"27 Ariz. App. 308\", \"volume\": \"27\", \"reporter\": \"Arizona Appeals Reports\", \"court\": \"Arizona Court of Appeals\", \"jurisdiction\": \"Arizona\", \"last_updated\": \"2021-08-10T22:06:30.321804+00:00\", \"provenance\": \"CAP\", \"judges\": \"HOWARD, C. J., and HATHAWAY, J., concur.\", \"parties\": \"The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Angel Junior GONZALES, Appellant.\", \"head_matter\": \"554 P.2d 904\\nThe STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Angel Junior GONZALES, Appellant.\\nNo. 1 CA-CR 1580.\\nCourt of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1.\\nJuly 27, 1976.\\nRehearing Denied Aug. 31, 1976.\\nReview Denied Sept. 28, 1976.\\nBruce E. Babbitt, Atty. Gen., by William J. Schafer, III, and Cleon M. Duke, Asst. Attys. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee.\\nRoss P. Lee, Maricopa County Public Defender, by Edmund T. Allen III, Deputy Public Defender, Phoenix, for appellant.\", \"word_count\": \"469\", \"char_count\": \"2841\", \"text\": \"OPINION\\nKRUCKER, Judge.\\nAppellant was charged with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, said offense being committed while his driver's license was suspended, in violation of A.R.S. \\u00a7 28-692 and 28-692.02.\\nThe case was submitted to the court on the basis of the preliminary hearing transcript and the departmental report. Appellant was found not guilty of driving while intoxicated and guilty of driving with a suspended license in violation of A.R.S. \\u00a7 28-1203. He advances two grounds for reversal :\\n1. The court erred in not granting his motion to dismiss.\\n2. The court erred in finding him guilty under A.R.S. \\u00a7 28-1203.\\nWe find no merit in either argument.\\nAs to the motion to dismiss for violation of the speedy trial rule, the violation was waived by appellant's failure to timely assert it. State v. Lee, 25 Ariz.App. 220, 542 P.2d 413 (1975).\\nAppellant contends that A.R.S. \\u00a7 28-692.02 refers only to \\\"a suspension of the type of suspension that is covered in \\u00a7 28-473.\\\" In other words, it is his position that suspension of a driver's license pursuant to the Financial Responsibility Act, A. R.S. \\u00a7 28-1101, et seq., cannot be the basis for a violation under A.R.S. \\u00a7 28-692.02. He cites no authority for his position and we reject it. The language of A.R.S. \\u00a7 28-692.02 makes no distinction as to the basis for suspension of the driver's license and we decline to read into the statute, as appellant would have us do, the requirement that the license had been suspended because of driving violations. The statutory language is clear and expresses a legislative intent to punish more severely persons whose licenses have been suspended, for whatever reason, and who drive a vehicle while intoxicated during the suspension period.\\nAppellant's conviction of an offense different from that with which he was charged was proper if it was an included offense. The test for determining whether an offense is included in another is whether the offense charged cannot be committed without necessarily committing the included offense. State v. Thorn-brugh, 24 Ariz.App. 573, 540 P.2d 192 (1975). Appellant's conviction of operating a motor vehicle while his license was suspended meets this test.\\nAffirmed.\\nHOWARD, C. J., and HATHAWAY, J., concur.\\nNOTE: This cause was decided J>y the Judges of Division Two as authorized by A.R.S. \\u00a7 12-120(E).\"}" |