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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

LIZ JUDITH ROMO ALEMAN, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 18-0323

Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County

No. P1300CR201601595

The Honorable Tina R. Ainley, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

M. Alex Harris, P.C., Chino Valley

By M. Alex Harris

Counsel for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix

By Michelle L. Hogan

Counsel for Appellee

FILED 2-5-2019
STATE v. ALEMAN

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge James B. Morse Jr. delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Jon W. Thompson and Vice Chief Judge Peter B. Swann joined.

M O R S E, Judge:

¶1 Liz Judith Aleman ("Aleman") appeals her convictions and 

sentences for two counts of sale or transportation of narcotic drugs (Counts

1 and 2) and two counts of possession of drug paraphernalia (Counts 3 and 

4). For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 On December 21, 2016, a sergeant with the Yavapai County 

Sheriff's Office (the "Sergeant") pulled over a car driven by Aleman. 

Aleman was the sole occupant of the car.

¶3 Following the traffic stop, the Sergeant asked Aleman for 

permission to search the car. Aleman declined the request but agreed to let 

the Sergeant "pass [his] dog around" the vehicle. The Sergeant's dog alerted 

to the right rear passenger door. The Sergeant subsequently searched the 

entire vehicle and discovered a can of air freshener, and 12.5 pounds of 

cocaine and 2.5 pounds of heroin that were hidden in vacuum sealed 

packages inside the rear passenger and driver-side doors.

¶4 Before trial, Aleman moved to preclude any testimony from 

the Sergeant regarding drug-courier profiling and the "modus operandi" of 

drug-trafficking organizations. At trial, however, Aleman stipulated that 

the Sergeant was "permitted to testify about the importance of his 

observation of an air freshener spray can or aerosol that was in the vehicle 

in regard to how it can be used as a masking agent in his training and 

experience." During the trial, and without objection, the Sergeant testified 

that, based on his training and experience, many suspects agree to canine 

sniffs because they are confident that the odors of narcotics will be masked 

through various methods, including air fresheners. The Sergeant also 

testified that the drugs found in Aleman's car were worth approximately 

$150,000 wholesale and $545,000 street value.
STATE v. ALEMAN

Decision of the Court

3

¶5 The jury found Aleman guilty on all counts. The court 

sentenced Aleman to concurrent terms of four years' imprisonment for 

Counts 1 and 2, and 6 months' imprisonment for Counts 3 and 4.

¶6 Aleman timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 

Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised 

Statutes ("A.R.S.") sections 13-4031 and -4033(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶7 "We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining 

the convictions with all reasonable inferences resolved against the 

defendant." State v. Harm, 236 Ariz. 402, 404, n.2 (App. 2015).

¶8 Aleman raises two arguments on appeal. First, Aleman 

argues that the superior court erred by allowing testimony of expert nature

by the Sergeant without qualifying him as an expert pursuant to Arizona 

Rule of Evidence ("Rule") 702. Because the State failed to establish the 

Sergeant as an "expert," Aleman asserts that this testimony was 

inadmissible. Second, Aleman argues that the superior court erred in 

applying an 83% surcharge to her fines. She asserts that the 83% surcharge 

is more than authorized by statute.

I. Waiver

¶9 An appellant's opening brief must include, for each issue, the 

applicable standard of appellate review with citations to supporting legal 

authority and references to the records on appeal. Ariz. R. Crim. P.

31.10(a)(7). An opening brief must also include significant arguments 

setting forth an appellant's position on each issue raised. See State v. Carver, 

160 Ariz. 167, 175 (1989). Here, although Aleman mentions Rule 702 in her 

opening brief, she does not develop her arguments, cite to relevant legal 

authority, provide any record citations, or identify specific statements or 

facts to support her claims. Notably, Aleman does not identify, cite to, or 

quote any specific testimony by the Sergeant as a basis for her appeal. 

Because Aleman's contentions are not sufficiently developed, she has 

waived her claims on appeal.

1 See State v. Moody, 208 Ariz. 424, 454, ¶ 101,

n.9 (2004) ("Merely mentioning an argument is not enough: 'In Arizona, 

opening briefs must present significant arguments, supported by authority, 

setting forth an appellant's position on the issues raised. Failure to argue a 

claim usually constitutes abandonment and waiver of that claim.'") (citation 

 

1 In her reply brief, Aleman argues for the first time that the State 

improperly presented drug-profiling evidence through the Sergeant.
STATE v. ALEMAN

Decision of the Court

4

omitted); see also State v. Linder, 227 Ariz. 69, 70, ¶ 3, n.1 (App. 2010) (finding 

waiver of arguments that were raised in a reply brief but not advanced in 

the opening brief).

II. Invited Error 

¶10 Even if Aleman's arguments were not waived pursuant to 

Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 31.10(a)(7), Aleman invited any error 

when she stipulated to the admission of the Sergeant's testimony regarding 

the relevance of the air freshener. See State v. Parker, 231 Ariz. 391, 405, ¶ 61

(2013) (finding that a defendant's stipulation to admit evidence 

"preclude[d] him from asserting on appeal that [the] admission was error"); 

see also State v. Logan, 200 Ariz. 564, 565-66, ¶¶ 8-9, 15 (2001) (refusing to 

consider claims of error in a jury instruction when the trial court gave the 

instruction as requested by the defendant). Here, after Aleman initially 

moved to preclude certain testimony, the parties agreed, and defense 

counsel stipulated that the Sergeant could "testify about the importance of" 

the air freshener as a masking agent.

¶11 Because Aleman stipulated to allow the Sergeant's testimony 

on the air freshener, Aleman cannot now complain that the court erred by 

allowing such testimony. See State v. Walton, 159 Ariz. 571, 583 (1989)

(holding that because the defendant "stipulated to the foundation for 

admitting [a] gun into evidence . . . he cannot now complain of insufficient 

foundation"). Aleman is "bound by [her] stipulation unless relieved 

therefrom by the court," Pulliam v. Pulliam, 139 Ariz. 343, 345 (App. 1984), 

and we will not consider her claim regarding the Sergeant's testimony 

about masking agents.

III. Surcharge

¶12 Aleman further argues that the superior court erred by

implementing an 83% surcharge on her fines and fees. She contends that 

the surcharge should have totaled 73%. Aleman incorrectly analyzed the 

applicable statutes authorizing surcharges. Aleman failed to include A.R.S.

§ 16-954(A), which included an additional 10% surcharge to be imposed on 

all criminal fines collected pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-116.01. Because A.R.S. 

§§ 12-116.01(A), -116.01(B), -116.01(C), and -116.02(A) apply to Aleman's 

fines and fees, the court correctly imposed the statutorily authorized 

surcharge.
STATE v. ALEMAN

Decision of the Court

5

CONCLUSION

¶13 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Aleman's convictions 

and sentences.