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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

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

FILED 9-5-2019
STATE v. VILLA

Decision of the Court

2

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.
STATE v. VILLA

Decision of the Court

3

¶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).