State v. Magyar

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

JEREMY LUCAS LASZLO MAGYAR, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 25-0203

FILED 06-23-2026

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2022-030674-001
The Honorable Utiki Laing, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

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

By Michael J. Dew, Phoenix
Counsel for Appellant

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Jennifer M. Perkins delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Michael S. Catlett and Judge Angela K. Paton joined.
STATE v. MAGYAR
Decision of the Court

P E R K I N S, Judge:

¶1 Jeremy Lucas Laszlo Magyar timely appealed under Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969)
following his convictions and resulting sentences for two counts of
aggravated driving under the influence of alcohol (impaired to the slightest
degree) and (blood alcohol concentration (“BAC”) over 0.08) with a
suspended license, both class 4 felonies. Magyar’s counsel searched the
record and advised this Court that he found no arguable, non-frivolous
question of law. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537,
¶ 30 (App. 1999). Magyar had the opportunity to file a supplemental brief
but did not do so.

¶2 We must review the entire record for reversible error, State v.
Thompson, 229 Ariz. 43, 45, ¶ 3 (App. 2012), viewing the evidence in the light
most favorable to sustaining the convictions and resolving all reasonable
inferences against Magyar. See State v. Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230, ¶ 2 (App.
1998). After reviewing the record, we affirm Magyar’s convictions and
sentences.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶3 On the evening of October 23, 2020, Magyar collided with
another vehicle while driving southbound on State Route 51. Although
Magyar’s vehicle was emitting heavy smoke after the collision, he fled the
scene, exited the highway, and pulled into a nearby parking lot. Another
driver, who had witnessed the accident, followed Magyar’s smoking
vehicle to the parking lot. The other driver parked in an adjacent parking
lot and called 911 to report the accident. While waiting for the police to
arrive, the other driver saw Magyar exit from the driver’s door, walk into a
gas station, possibly into a smoke shop, and then go back into his vehicle.

¶4 Police arrived on the scene about 30 minutes after the
accident. Police observed that Magyar’s eyes were bloodshot and watery,
his breath smelled of alcohol, and he was slurring his speech. Magyar
refused a blood, breath, or urine test. So police obtained a warrant and drew
his blood approximately 2 hours and 45 minutes after the accident. The test
returned a blood alcohol content of 0.087 and the presence of THC.

¶5 The State charged Magyar with two counts of aggravated
driving under the influence of alcohol with a suspended license, and one
count of driving under the influence of marijuana with a suspended license.
See A.R.S. § 28-1381(A)(1)–(3), -1383(A)(1). At trial, the State introduced

2
STATE v. MAGYAR
Decision of the Court

testimony from the other driver, multiple police officers and forensic
scientists, and a custodian of records for the department of motor vehicles,
who testified that Magyar’s license was suspended on the date of the
accident and that Magyar was notified of the suspension. The jury found
Magyar guilty on both counts of aggravated driving under the influence of
alcohol but acquitted him of driving under the influence of marijuana.

¶6 At sentencing, the court found that Magyar had two prior
felony convictions. The court sentenced him as a category three repetitive
offender to presumptive 10-year sentences to run concurrently. The court
credited Magyar with 713 days of presentence incarceration credit.

DISCUSSION

¶7 The record reflects that the superior court conducted all
pre-trial and trial proceedings in compliance with the Arizona Rules of
Criminal Procedure. See State v. Gomez, 27 Ariz. App. 248, 251 (1976) (citing
Ariz. R. Crim. P. 1.2). Magyar was present and represented by counsel, or
waived his presence, at all stages of the proceedings. Sufficient evidence
was presented at trial for the jury to determine, beyond a reasonable doubt,
that Magyar was guilty of the charged offenses. Magyar spoke at
sentencing. The court stated on the record the factors it considered in
imposing Magyar’s sentences, see Ariz. R. Crim. P. 26.10, and sentenced him
within the statutory guidelines, see A.R.S. §§ 13-701 to -709.

CONCLUSION

¶8 After reviewing the entire record for reversible error, we find
none. We therefore affirm Magyar’s convictions and sentences. See Leon, 104
Ariz. at 300–01.

¶9 Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel shall inform
Magyar of the status of the appeal and of his future options. Counsel has
no further obligations unless counsel finds an issue appropriate to submit
to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck,
140 Ariz. 582, 584–85 (1984). Magyar shall have 30 days from the date of this
decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro per motion for reconsideration
or petition for review.

MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court
FILED: JR
3