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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL 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

VALERIE FELIZ ALBANO, Appellant. 

No. 1 CA-CR 14-0836 

 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County 

No. CR2013-001539-001 

The Honorable Robert E. Miles, Judge 

AFFIRMED 

COUNSEL 

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix 

By Joseph T. Maziarz 

Counsel for Appellee 

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix 

By Terry Reid 

Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. ALBANO 

Decision of the Court 

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Presiding Judge Randall M. Howe delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Jon W. Thompson and Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop joined. 

H O W E, Judge: 

¶1 This appeal is filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 

U.S. 738 (1967) and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969). Counsel 

for Valerie Feliz Albano asks this Court to search the record for 

fundamental error. Albano was given an opportunity to file a supplemental 

brief in propria persona. She has not done so. For the following reasons, we 

affirm Albano’s conviction and sentence. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

¶2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the 

trial court’s judgment and resolve all reasonable inferences against Albano. 

State v. Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230 ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 897, 898 (App. 1998). 

¶3 One evening in October 2012, Phoenix Police went to a home 

in west Phoenix to conduct a warrant execution on Albano, who had a 

misdemeanor warrant. The officers also wanted to speak with her about a 

violent offender they sought and believed she had ties with. After getting 

consent from Albano’s stepsister, who owned the house, officers entered 

and found Albano asleep on the couch with her 11-month old son. When 

she awoke, Albano became “very belligerent [and] uncooperative,” yelling 

profanities and refusing the officers’ commands. 

¶4 Hearing the yelling inside the house, Officer M.M., who had 

been watching the house’s exterior during the warrant execution, decided 

to enter. Because Albano was refusing to follow the officers’ commands, 

Officer M.M. grabbed her right arm and told her she was under arrest. 

When Officer M.M. pulled out his handcuffs, Albano slapped them out of 

his hands and immediately began trying to jerk her arms away from him. 

Another officer then removed Albano’s son from the couch and took him 

outside while the remaining officers struggled with Albano.

¶5 As she kept trying to jerk her arm out of Officer M.M.’s hold, 

Albano stood up on the couch, kicking him and trying to keep her hands 

out of his reach. Officer M.M. then pulled her down, and while Albano 
STATE v. ALBANO 

Decision of the Court 

3

continued to scream and kick the officer, he put her in an arm-bar position 

to control her, laying Albano on her stomach while controlling her elbow, 

wrist, and shoulder. As Officer M.M. held Albano in this position, another 

officer helped get Albano’s other arm behind her back and placed her in 

handcuffs. As the officer did so, Albano scratched Officer M.M., digging 

her fingernails into his wrist. 

¶6 Despite being handcuffed, Albano continued to fight and 

scream as officers took her out of the house. Once outside, Albano accused 

Officer M.M. of punching her several times and dislocating her shoulder. 

The officers called the paramedics to examine Albano, but the paramedics 

released her back to the officers after concluding that she had not sustained 

any injuries. The State charged Albano with one count of threatening or 

intimidating, a class one misdemeanor; one count of resisting arrest, a class 

six felony; one count of aggravated assault, a class four felony, and three 

counts of aggravated assault, each class five felonies. However, the State 

later dismissed the charge of threatening or intimidating. 

¶7 During Albano’s jury trial, an officer who was present at the 

scene testified that he saw Albano intentionally kick the officer twice as he 

tried to control her. Officer M.M. also testified that he worried that Albano’s 

screaming intended to alert someone of the officers’ presence to distract the 

officers “from the primary threat.” After the State rested its case in chief, 

Albano moved for a judgment of acquittal pursuant to Arizona Rule of 

Criminal Procedure 20, arguing that insufficient evidence supported a 

conviction for the first five counts of the indictment. But the trial court 

denied the motion. 

¶8 After the trial court conducted a hearing pursuant to Arizona 

Rule of Evidence 609—permitting the State to use some of Albano’s prior 

convictions to attack her credibility as a witness—Albano testified on her 

own behalf. Albano testified that she began yelling profanities and 

threatening the officers when she awoke because she was not aware that 

they were officers. Upon realizing that the officer was with the Phoenix 

Police, Albano testified that she “tried to relax” and told the officer that she 

was not resisting. But she stated that the officer yelled commands at her to 

place her hands behind her back, though she could not do so because she 

was still lying on her back with her child on her chest. She also stated that 

Officer M.M. punched her, had his gun drawn at her, and “ram[med]” her 

into a wall. During rebuttal testimony, Officer M.M. denied all of these 

allegations. 
STATE v. ALBANO 

Decision of the Court 

4

¶9 After deliberating, the jury convicted Albano of one count of 

resisting arrest, acquitting her of the remaining four charges. Before her 

sentencing hearing, Albano voluntarily admitted to four prior convictions. 

The trial court subsequently conducted a sentencing hearing in compliance 

with Albano’s constitutional rights and Arizona Rule of Criminal 

Procedure 26. The trial court considered Albano’s prior convictions in 

aggravating her sentence, and as mitigating circumstances considered that 

she had young children requiring care and that she had made efforts to 

improve herself while in custody. After concluding that the aggravating 

and mitigating factors balanced each other out, the trial court sentenced 

Albano to the presumptive term of 3.75 years’ imprisonment with 364 days’ 

presentence incarceration credit. Albano timely appealed. 

DISCUSSION 

¶10 We review Albano’s convictions and sentences for 

fundamental error. See State v. Gendron, 168 Ariz. 153, 155, 812 P.2d 626, 628 

(1991). 

¶11 Counsel for Albano has advised this Court that after a diligent 

search of the entire record, he has found no arguable question of law. We 

have read and considered counsel’s brief and fully reviewed the record for 

reversible error. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. We find none. All 

of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules 

of Criminal Procedure. So far as the record reveals, Albano was represented 

by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, and the sentence imposed was 

within the statutory limits. We decline to order briefing, and we affirm 

Albano’s convictions and sentences. 

¶12 Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel shall inform 

Albano of the status of her appeal and of her future options. Defense 

counsel has no further obligations unless, upon review, counsel finds an 

issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition 

for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584–85, 684 P.2d 154, 156–57 

(1984). Albano shall have 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, 

if she desires, with a pro per motion for reconsideration or a petition for 

review. 
STATE v. ALBANO 

Decision of the Court 

5

CONCLUSION 

¶13 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.