State v. Villa ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                      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    UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.
    DONNA G. VILLA, Appellant.
    No. 1 CA-CR 18-0573
    FILED 9-5-2019
    Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
    No. CR2017-115971-001
    The Honorable Annalaurie Van Wie, Judge Pro Tempore
    AFFIRMED
    COUNSEL
    Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
    By Joseph T. Maziarz
    Counsel for Appellee
    Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix
    By Joel M. Glynn
    Counsel for Appellant
    STATE v. VILLA
    Decision of the Court
    MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Chief Judge Peter B. Swann delivered the decision of the court, in which
    Presiding Judge James B. Morse Jr. and Judge Kent E. Cattani joined.
    S W A N N, Chief Judge:
    ¶1             This is an appeal under Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967), and State v. Leon, 
    104 Ariz. 297
    (1969), from Donna G. Villa’s
    conviction and sentence for aggravated assault. Neither Villa nor her
    counsel identify any issues for appeal. We have reviewed the record for
    fundamental error. See Smith v. Robbins, 
    528 U.S. 259
    (2000); Anders, 
    386 U.S. 738
    ; State v. Clark, 
    196 Ariz. 530
    , 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999). We find none.
    ¶2             At trial, the state presented evidence of the following facts.
    On January 4, 2017, one of Villa’s friends called 911 because Villa had texted
    her several times and asked her to call the police regarding her son, who
    had a history of violence. When police arrived at Villa’s apartment, Villa
    answered the door and ultimately invited the police officers inside to
    perform a welfare check, saying that her son had left. After checking the
    inside of the apartment, the police officers found Villa’s son hiding outside
    on the patio and took him into custody.
    ¶3            While one officer placed Villa’s son in the patrol car, the other
    officer stayed upstairs with Villa. Villa became visibly agitated and began
    yelling at the police officer, telling her to leave. Villa began approaching
    the officer and the officer tried to create distance between her and Villa by
    holding her arm out in front of her. Villa began hitting the police officer,
    leaving red marks on the officer’s cheek. The officer placed Villa in
    handcuffs and detained her. Villa was charged with aggravated assault.
    ¶4           The court denied Villa’s motion for a judgment of acquittal
    under Ariz. R. Crim. P. (“Rule”) 20. The jury found Villa guilty of
    aggravated assault, and the court sentenced her to 2 years of probation.
    ¶5           We detect no fundamental error. Villa was present and
    represented at all critical stages. The jury was properly comprised under
    A.R.S. § 21-102 and was properly instructed. The jury’s verdict was
    supported by sufficient evidence.
    2
    STATE v. VILLA
    Decision of the Court
    ¶6            A person commits assault by “[i]ntentionally, knowingly or
    recklessly causing any physical injury to another person” or by
    “[k]nowingly touching another person with the intent to injure, insult or
    provoke such person.” A.R.S. § 13-1203(A)(1), (3). Assault is elevated to
    aggravated assault if the person commits the assault knowing that the
    victim is a peace officer. A.R.S. § 13-1204(A)(8)(a). Here, the state’s
    evidence clearly established that Villa attacked the police officer and that
    the officer sustained injuries on her face as a result. The court imposed a
    lawful probation term for aggravated assault under A.R.S. §§ 13-1204, -901,
    and -902.
    ¶7            We affirm. Defense counsel’s obligations pertaining to this
    appeal have come to an end. See State v. Shattuck, 
    140 Ariz. 582
    , 584–85
    (1984). Unless, upon review, counsel discovers an issue appropriate for
    petition for review to the Arizona Supreme Court, counsel must only
    inform Villa of the status of this appeal and her future options. 
    Id. Villa has
    30 days from the date of this decision to file a petition for review in propria
    persona. See Rule 31.21(b)(2)(A). Upon the court’s own motion, Villa has 30
    days from the date of this decision in which to file a motion for
    reconsideration. See Rule 31.20(c).
    AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
    FILED: AA
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 1 CA-CR 18-0573

Filed Date: 9/5/2019

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 9/5/2019