From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Collazo

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO
Jun 8, 2018
No. 2 CA-CR 2018-0013-PR (Ariz. Ct. App. Jun. 8, 2018)

Opinion

No. 2 CA-CR 2018-0013-PR

06-08-2018

THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. LUIS DANIEL COLLAZO, Petitioner.

COUNSEL Law Office of Paul S. Banales, Tucson By Paul S. Banales Counsel for Petitioner


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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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. CR20153532001
The Honorable Scott Rash, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL Law Office of Paul S. Banales, Tucson
By Paul S. Banales
Counsel for Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Espinosa authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Vásquez and Judge Eppich concurred. ESPINOSA, Judge:

¶1 Luis Collazo seeks review of the trial court's order summarily dismissing 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). We find no such abuse here.

We apply the current version of Rule 32 as doing so will neither "be infeasible [n]or work an injustice." Ariz. Sup. Ct. Order R-17-0002 (Aug. 31, 2017).

¶2 After a jury trial, Collazo was convicted of continuous sexual abuse of a child, two counts of sexual conduct with a minor under the age of fifteen, and two counts of furnishing obscene or harmful items to minors. The offenses involved Collazo's son and stepson, who were eight and fourteen years old at the time of the trial in 2016. The trial court sentenced Collazo to concurrent and consecutive prison terms, including two consecutive terms of life imprisonment without the possibility of release for thirty-five years. We affirmed his convictions and sentences on appeal. State v. Collazo, No. 2 CA-CR 2016-0257 (Ariz. App. Jan. 19, 2017) (mem. decision).

¶3 Collazo filed a petition for post-conviction relief in July 2017, alleging several claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The trial court summarily dismissed the petition, and this petition for review followed. On review, Collazo argues he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on "at least" two of his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, to wit: 1) trial counsel failed to either ask him if there were any witnesses who could "comment on the credibility" of the victims or to conduct an investigation to find any such witnesses; and, 2) counsel failed to object to the testimony of Dr. Wendy Dutton, who testified as the state's "cold" expert witness in the area of the sexual abuse of children. On review, Collazo refers to his own declaration, that of attorney Dan Cooper, who opined that trial counsel was ineffective, and trial counsel's affidavit, all of which were presented to the court below.

The trial court stayed the post-conviction proceeding pending the outcome of Collazo's direct appeal.

To the extent Collazo's petition for post-conviction relief contained other allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel, he has not raised them on review and, therefore, they are waived. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(4)(D) (failure to raise issue in petition for review "constitutes a waiver of appellate review of that issue").

¶4 We have reviewed the record and the trial court's detailed, comprehensive ruling and conclude it correctly rejected Collazo'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").

We note, however, that we do not adopt the trial court's recitation of the procedural history, which contains several statements that appear unsupported by the record. For example, contrary to the court's ruling, the direct appeal did not raise any specific issues, and the notice of post-conviction relief, the state's response to the petition, and the reply were filed on different dates than the ones stated by the court. --------

¶5 Therefore, although we grant the petition for review, relief is denied.


Summaries of

State v. Collazo

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO
Jun 8, 2018
No. 2 CA-CR 2018-0013-PR (Ariz. Ct. App. Jun. 8, 2018)
Case details for

State v. Collazo

Case Details

Full title:THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. LUIS DANIEL COLLAZO, Petitioner.

Court:ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO

Date published: Jun 8, 2018

Citations

No. 2 CA-CR 2018-0013-PR (Ariz. Ct. App. Jun. 8, 2018)