Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2017-0329-PR
04-25-2018
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. VANESSA LYNN RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner.
Vanessa Lynn Rodriguez, Goodyear 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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. CR20134985001
The Honorable Javier Chon-Lopez, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
Vanessa Lynn Rodriguez, Goodyear
In Propria Persona
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Eppich authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Vásquez and Judge Espinosa concurred. EPPICH, Judge:
¶1 Vanessa Rodriguez seeks review of the trial court's orders summarily denying her petition for post-conviction relief and motion for rehearing filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. We will not disturb those orders unless the court abused its discretion. See State v. Roseberry, 237 Ariz. 507, ¶ 7 (2015). Rodriguez has not shown such abuse here.
¶2 After a jury trial, Rodriguez was convicted of armed robbery, aggravated robbery, and kidnapping and was sentenced to concurrent prison terms, the longest of which is 10.5 years. We affirmed her convictions and sentences on appeal. State v. Rodriguez, No. 2 CA-CR 2014-0272 (Ariz. App. May 20, 2015) (mem. decision).
¶3 Rodriguez sought post-conviction relief, and appointed counsel filed a notice stating he had reviewed the record but found no claims to raise in a Rule 32 proceeding. Rodriguez then filed a pro se petition arguing she had not been advised of her rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), before she made statements to a uniformed police officer and, during a later interview, the detective had ignored her invocation of her right to counsel. She additionally argued the trial court had erred in denying a motion to suppress, constituting "structural error," and her trial counsel had been ineffective in failing to move to suppress her statements to the officer and detective. The court summarily denied relief. Rodriguez filed a motion for rehearing, in which she alleged new facts in support of her various claims. The court denied that motion, and this petition for review followed.
¶4 On review, Rodriguez restates her claims of trial error and ineffective assistance. We have reviewed the record and conclude she has identified no material error in the trial court's rulings. Her claims regarding her statements to law enforcement officers were precluded as waived, see Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a)(3), and her claim regarding the denial of her motion to suppress was precluded by Rule 32.2(a)(2) because this court had already affirmed on appeal the trial court's denial of that motion, Rodriguez, No. 2 CA-CR 2014-0272, ¶¶ 16-18.
Rodriguez apparently has abandoned her claim that the denial of her motion to suppress was structural error. --------
¶5 Moreover, the trial court was not required to consider the additional factual claims Rodriguez made in her motion for rehearing. See State v. Bortz, 169 Ariz. 575, 577 (App. 1991) ("[A] court will not entertain new matters raised for the first time in a motion for rehearing."). And Rodriguez has not established any basis for counsel to have sought suppression of her statements or that any such motion was likely to be granted. See State v. Bennett, 213 Ariz. 562, ¶ 21 (2006) ("To state a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show both that counsel's performance fell below objectively reasonable standards and that this deficiency prejudiced the defendant."). We agree with the court that Rodriguez was not in custody when she spoke to the uniformed police officer, she did not unambiguously invoke her right to counsel during her interview with the detective, and the detective responded appropriately to her statements regarding counsel. See State v. Newell, 212 Ariz. 389, ¶¶ 24-25 (2006) (although officer should clarify ambiguous request for counsel, officer must cease questioning only if request is unequivocal); State v. Zamora, 220 Ariz. 63, ¶ 9 (App. 2009) ("Police are free to ask questions of a person who is not in custody without having to give the person any warnings under Miranda.").
¶6 We grant review but deny relief.