STATE v. VALENTINI

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) v. RICK WAYNE VALENTINI aka BRYAN ALLEN STEWART, Appellant. DIVISION ONE FILED: 3/19/2013 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: mjt 1 CA-CR 12-0032 1 CA-CR 12-0033 (Consolidated) DEPARTMENT D MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for PublicationRule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court of Maricopa County Cause No. CR2007-154790-001 CR2010-007708-001 The Honorable Lisa Daniel Flores, Judge AFFIRMED Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals Section Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender By Spencer D. Heffel, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix T H O M P S O N, Judge ¶1 This case comes to us as an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969). Counsel for Rick Wayne Valentini (defendant), after searching the entire record, has been unable to discover any arguable questions of law and has filed a brief requesting this court conduct an Anders review of the record. Defendant has been afforded an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, and he has not done so. ¶2 Defendant went by the name Rick Wayne Valentini for the majority of his early life. In 2001, defendant created and assumed a new identity, that of Bryan Allen Stewart. defendant identified himself to police as following an arrest for breaking into a garage. In 2007, Bryan Stewart Defendant used the name Bryan Stewart during the proceedings and signed a plea agreement, resulting in a conviction in CR2007-154790-001 for criminal trespass in the first degree under his false identity. ¶3 Years later, defendant was arrested on an outstanding traffic warrant. Defendant s statements, when compared with the contents wallet, identity. of his Officers resulted searched in an defendant s investigation home and a of his storage unit, where they found evidence of the false identity and four firearms. The state charged defendant with 41 counts in total: 28 counts of forgery, class 4 felonies (counts 1-4, 7-9, 11-12, 14, 16-20, 22-25, 27-29, 31-36); 5 counts of taking identity of 2 another, class 4 felonies (counts 5, 13, 15, 21, 30); 2 counts of money laundering in the second degree, class 3 felonies (counts 6, 10); 1 count of criminal possession of a forgery device, a class 6 felony (count 26); and 5 counts of misconduct involving weapons, class 4 felonies (counts 37-41). ¶4 At trial, the state presented evidence that one of defendant s false social security numbers belonged to Q.B. testified that he did not know defendant and had not Q.B. given defendant permission to use his social security number, which defendant used on a bank application, employment applications, a tax form, and on a pair of military dog-tags. presented a letter from defendant to his The state also aunt in which he admitted to inventing Bryan Stewart and living under the alias. Defendant purchased an embosser and customized seal to create false documents. He relied on three social security numbers to create birth a false certificate and identification card under this new name. obtain a government Defendant used these documents and a false University of Michigan diploma to gain employment, to open bank accounts, to enroll as a member in groups, and to obtain two distinct voter registrations. ¶5 trial Defendant (counts 1-36, was convicted 38-41). As of 40 to the counts after remaining a jury misconduct involving weapons charge, the jury returned a not guilty verdict (count 37). The trial court found that based on defendant s 3 criminal trespass conviction offenses (counts 20-36, violations. presumptive The term 38-41) trial of 1 and court year for probation, subsequent automatic were the probation sentenced the defendant probation to a violation; concurrent, presumptive terms for counts 1-36 (Counts 1-2: 2.5 years; Counts 3-5, 7-9, 11-25, 27-36: 4.5 years; Counts 6-10: 6.5 years; Count 26: 1.75 years); and concurrent, presumptive 4.5 year terms for counts 38-41, to be served consecutive to counts 1-36. Defendant received 365 days presentence incarceration credit for the probation violation, 0 days credit for counts 1-36, and 205 days credit for counts 38-41. Defendant timely appealed. ¶6 We have read and considered counsel s brief and have searched the entire record for reversible error. Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. See Leon, 104 We find none. All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. was adequately So far as the record reveals, defendant represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, and the sentence imposed was within the statutory limits. Pursuant to State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984), defendant s counsel s obligations in this appeal are at an end. Defendant has thirty days from the date of this decision in which to proceed, if he so desires, 4 with an in propria persona motion for reconsideration or petition for review. ¶7 We affirm the convictions and sentences. /s/ ________________________________ JON W. THOMPSON, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ___________________________________ JOHN C. GEMMILL, Presiding Judge /s/ ___________________________________ DONN KESSLER, Judge 5

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.