Opinion
2 CA-CR 2013-0085-PR
06-10-2013
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. JEROME E. ARNOLDI JR., Petitioner.
Barbara LaWall, Pima County Attorney By Jacob R. Lines Attorneys for Respondent Jerome E. Arnoldi Jr. In Propria Persona
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Not for Publication
Rule 111, Rules of
the Supreme Court
PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY
Cause No. CR031033
Honorable Richard S. Fields, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
Barbara LaWall, Pima County Attorney
By Jacob R. Lines
Tucson
Attorneys for Respondent
Jerome E. Arnoldi Jr. Buckeye
In Propria Persona
KELLY, Judge. ¶1 Petitioner Jerome Arnoldi Jr., seeks review of the trial court's order denying his successive petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. "We will not disturb a trial court's ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief absent a clear abuse of discretion." State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390, ¶ 4, 166 P.3d 945, 948 (App. 2007). Arnoldi has not sustained his burden of establishing such abuse here. ¶2 After a jury trial, Arnoldi was convicted of twenty counts of sexual offenses involving his four minor daughters. The trial court imposed consecutive sentences, including eighteen consecutive life sentences. This court affirmed all but one of his convictions and remanded the case for resentencing on seven of the remaining convictions. State v. Arnoldi, 176 Ariz. 236, 243, 860 P.2d 503, 510 (App. 1993). Arnoldi has twice sought and been denied post-conviction relief, and this court denied relief on review of each proceeding. See State v. Arnoldi, No. 2 CA-CR 2007-0400-PR (memorandum decision filed June 26, 2008); State v. Arnoldi, Nos. 2 CA-CR 95-0136, 2 CA-CR 96-0344-PR (consolidated) (memorandum decision filed Jan. 29, 1997). ¶3 In July 2012, Arnoldi initiated a third proceeding for post-conviction relief, arguing in his petition that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel in relation to rejecting a plea offer made by the state and that the United States Supreme Court's decision in Missouri v. Frye, __ U.S __, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (2012) and Lafler v. Cooper, __ U.S. __, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (2012), constituted a significant change in the law entitling him to relief. The trial court concluded Arnoldi's claims were precluded and summarily denied relief. It likewise denied Arnoldi's subsequent motion for rehearing. ¶4 On review, Arnoldi again maintains that he received ineffective assistance in relation to his rejection of the plea offer and that Frye and Lafler entitle him to relief. But any such claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is precluded because it has long been the law in Arizona that a defendant is entitled to effective representation in the plea context, see State v. Donald, 198 Ariz. 406, ¶¶ 9, 14, 10 P.3d 1193, 1198, 1200 (App. 2000), and this issue could have been raised in Arnoldi's last post-conviction proceeding, see Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.1(g), 32.2(a). See also State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, ¶ 8, 260 P.3d 1102, 1105 (App. 2011) (significant change in law "'requires some transformative event, a clear break from the past'"), quoting State v. Shrum, 220 Ariz. 115, ¶ 15, 203 P.3d 1175, 1178 (2009). Therefore, although we grant the petition for review, we deny relief.
______________________
VIRGINIA C. KELLY, Judge
CONCURRING: ______________________
GARYE L. VÁSQUEZ, Presiding Judge
______________________
PHILIP G. ESPINOSA, Judge