Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2017-0312-PR
02-12-2018
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. FAUSTINO QUINTERO, Petitioner.
Faustino Quintero, Florence In Propria Persona
THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.19(e). Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Pima County
No. CR20093166001
The Honorable Scott Rash, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
Faustino Quintero, Florence
In Propria Persona
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Staring authored the decision of the Court, in which Chief Judge Eckerstrom and Judge Brearcliffe concurred. STARING, Presiding Judge:
¶1 Faustino Quintero seeks review of the trial court's order summarily denying his petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. We will not disturb that order unless the court abused its discretion. See State v. Roseberry, 237 Ariz. 507, ¶ 7 (2015). Quintero has not shown such abuse here.
¶2 Quintero was charged with intentional child abuse. At his first trial, the jury was instructed on that offense as well as the lesser-included offenses of reckless and negligent child abuse. During deliberations, the jury sent a note to the trial court stating there was "one jury member vote" to find Quintero guilty of reckless child abuse, and "seven jury member[] votes" to find him guilty of negligent child abuse. The note also indicated the jury was "at an impass[e]."
¶3 The trial court asked the jury if there was "a unanimous verdict as to the charge or any of the less[e]rs," and the jury foreperson replied "No." The foreperson also affirmed they could not "go forward and find something that all eight of [them] agree on" and that "further deliberations would [not] be helpful." The court declared a mistrial. The parties agreed with the court's proposed questions and the court's decision to declare a mistrial. After a second jury trial, Quintero was convicted of intentional child abuse and sentenced to a fourteen-year prison term. We affirmed his conviction and sentence on appeal. State v. Quintero, No. 2 CA-CR 2013-0269 (Ariz. App. Dec. 29, 2014) (mem. decision).
¶4 Quintero sought post-conviction relief, arguing his conviction violated double jeopardy protections because there was no "manifest necessity" warranting the mistrial. He reasoned that, because the jury appeared to have agreed he was not guilty of intentional child abuse, the trial court was required to determine whether the jury was "hopelessly deadlocked" on that charge before declaring a mistrial and failed to do so. He further asserted that the claim was not subject to preclusion, citing Stewart v. Smith, 202 Ariz. 446 (2002), and that, in any event, trial and appellate counsel were ineffective for failing to raise the issue. Quintero also claimed trial counsel had been ineffective in advising him whether to accept a plea offer from the state before his second trial.
¶5 The trial court summarily dismissed the petition. It concluded no double jeopardy violation occurred and it had properly determined that the jury could not reach a verdict on the greater or lesser offenses. Thus, the court also rejected Quintero's related claims of ineffective assistance. It also rejected Quintero's claim of ineffective assistance with regard to a plea offer. This petition for review followed.
¶6 On review, Quintero reasserts his claims regarding the mistrial, again asserting that his conviction violated double jeopardy and that trial and appellate counsel were ineffective in failing to raise the issue. He has not, however, identified any error in the trial court's reasoning in rejecting his petition below. And, we have reviewed the record and the court's ruling and conclude it correctly rejected Quintero's Rule 32 claims; we therefore adopt the court's ruling. See State v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 274 (App. 1993) (when trial court has correctly ruled on issues raised "in a fashion that will allow any court in the future to understand the resolution[, n]o useful purpose would be served by this court rehashing the trial court's correct ruling in a written decision").
On review, Quintero has abandoned his claim that counsel was ineffective with regard to the plea offer. --------
¶7 We grant review but deny relief.