Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 14-0647 PRPC
09-20-2016
STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. LUIS ALBERTO ECHEVERRIA, Petitioner.
COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Susan L. Luder Counsel for Respondent Luis Alberto Echeverria, San Luis Petitioner Pro Per
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2012-117598-001
The Honorable Jeanne M. Garcia, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL
Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix
By Susan L. Luder
Counsel for Respondent
Luis Alberto Echeverria, San Luis
Petitioner Pro Per
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Jon W. Thompson delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen and Chief Judge Michael J. Brown joined.
THOMPSON, Judge:
¶1 Petitioner Luis Alberto Echeverria petitions this court for review from the summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief of-right. Echeverria pled guilty to manslaughter and the trial court sentenced him to fourteen years' imprisonment. Echeverria argues his trial counsel was ineffective when counsel told Echeverria he would receive no more than 10.5 years' imprisonment.
¶2 We deny relief. The plea agreement provided for a sentence of nine to sixteen years' imprisonment and Echeverria told the court at the change of plea hearing that he understood the court could sentence him to any sentence within this range. Echeverria further acknowledged that his attorney explained the plea agreement to him "word for word[.]" Most importantly, Echeverria told the court no one made any additional promises to him to persuade him to accept the plea. A defendant's statements to the court at a change of plea hearing are binding on defendant. See State v. Hamilton, 142 Ariz. 91, 93, 688 P.2d 983, 985 (1984).
¶3 While Echeverria presents additional issues, we do not consider those issues because Echeverria did not raise those issues below. State v. Ramirez, 126 Ariz. 464, 467, 616 P.2d 924, 927 (App. 1980); State v. Wagstaff, 161 Ariz. 66, 71, 775 P.2d 1130, 1135 (App. 1988); State v. Bortz, 169 Ariz. 575, 577, 821 P.2d 236, 238 (App. 1991); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii).
¶4 We grant review but deny relief.