Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 14-0820 PRPC
12-20-2016
STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. JULIO CESAR FLORES-HIDALGO, Petitioner.
APPEARANCES Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Diane Meloche Counsel for Respondent Julio Cesar Flores-Hidalgo, Florence Petitioner Pro Se
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. CR2009-149915-001 DT
The Honorable Christopher T. Whitten, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
APPEARANCES Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix
By Diane Meloche
Counsel for Respondent Julio Cesar Flores-Hidalgo, Florence
Petitioner Pro Se
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Chief Judge Michael J. Brown delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen and Judge Margaret H. Downie joined. BROWN, Chief Judge:
¶1 Julio Cesar Flores-Hidalgo petitions this court for review from the summary dismissal of his second petition for post-conviction relief. In 2010, Flores-Hidalgo pled guilty to molestation of a child and two counts of attempted molestation of a child, all dangerous crimes against children. Flores-Hidalgo argues his trial counsel was ineffective for a variety of reasons: his plea was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary; he never had the opportunity to review the presentence report with his counsel; and the trial court erred when it imposed a sentence of twenty-four years' imprisonment for molestation of a child. On review, Flores-Hidalgo contends these claims are timely because he could not "read or write [E]nglish" and therefore did not know he had a right to counsel in his "of-right" post-conviction relief proceeding in 2010.
Flores-Hidalgo represented himself in his first post-conviction relief proceeding.
¶2 Flores-Hidalgo could have raised all these issues in 2010 in his first petition for post-conviction relief regardless of whether he had counsel. Any claim a defendant could have raised in an earlier post-conviction relief proceeding is precluded. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a). None of the exceptions under Rule 32.2(b) apply. Further, Flores-Hidalgo knew he had a right to counsel in his of-right post-conviction proceeding. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court provided Flores-Hidalgo a one-page document titled "Notice of Rights of Review After Conviction and Procedure." That notice, written in English, explained to Flores-Hidalgo that he had a right to file a petition for post-conviction relief and that he had a right to appointment of counsel if he was indigent. The notice also identified the specific forms Flores-Hidalgo must use, where to obtain those forms, where to file them, and the deadline for filing. We presume that because an interpreter was present at the sentencing hearing, and because Flores-Hildalgo signed the written notice, he was properly advised of its contents. See State v. Mendoza, 181 Ariz. 472, 475 (App. 1995) ("It is presumed that court interpreters will correctly carry out their duties.").
¶3 Additionally, the court explained to Flores-Hidalgo that he had a right to file a petition for post-conviction relief, that he must do so within ninety days, and that he had a right to counsel if he was indigent. Flores-Hidalgo personally informed the court that he understood these rights.
Flores-Hildalgo does not argue that the interpreter's translation assistance at the sentencing hearing was deficient. State v. Rios, 112 Ariz. 143, 144 (1975) ("The burden is on the [Petitioner] to show that the interpreter [. . .] was deficient.") (citation omitted). --------
¶4 For the reasons stated above, we grant review but deny relief.