From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Rodriguez-Valenzuela

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO
Apr 15, 2021
No. 2 CA-CR 2020-0239-PR (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 15, 2021)

Opinion

No. 2 CA-CR 2020-0239-PR

04-15-2021

THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. JESUS GABRIEL RODRIGUEZ-VALENZUELA, Petitioner.

COUNSEL Barton & Storts, Tucson By Brick P. Storts III 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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. CR20183887001
The Honorable Deborah Bernini, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL Barton & Storts, Tucson
By Brick P. Storts III
Counsel for Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Eckerstrom authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Espinosa and Vice Chief Judge Staring concurred. ECKERSTROM, Judge:

¶1 Jesus Rodriguez-Valenzuela seeks review of the trial court's ruling summarily dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 33, Ariz. R. Crim. P. We will not disturb that ruling unless the court abused its discretion. See State v. Roseberry, 237 Ariz. 507, ¶ 7 (2015). Rodriguez-Valenzuela has not shown such abuse here.

Our supreme court amended the post-conviction relief rules, effective January 1, 2020. Ariz. Sup. Ct. Order R-19-0012 (Aug. 29, 2019). "The amendments apply to all cases pending on the effective date unless a court determines that 'applying the rule or amendment would be infeasible or work an injustice.'" State v. Mendoza, 249 Ariz. 180, n.1 (App. 2020) (quoting Ariz. Sup. Ct. Order R-19-0012). "Because it is neither infeasible nor works an injustice here, we cite to and apply the current version of the rules" except where otherwise noted. Id.

¶2 Rodriguez-Valenzuela was charged with conspiracy, illegally conducting an enterprise, and three counts each of transportation of methamphetamine and money laundering. He rejected a plea offer following a hearing held pursuant to State v. Donald, 198 Ariz. 406 (App. 2000), retained new counsel, and rejected a second plea offer after another Donald hearing. The day before trial, Rodriguez-Valenzuela pled guilty to the charges in the indictment and was sentenced to concurrent and consecutive prison terms totaling ten years.

¶3 Rodriguez-Valenzuela sought post-conviction relief, arguing his trial counsel had been ineffective by "fail[ing] to review and investigate" the case and to "properly advise" him to accept the first plea offer. He also claimed counsel should have sought reinstatement of the first plea offer pursuant to Rule 15.8, Ariz. R. Crim. P., because, after Rodriguez-Valenzuela had rejected that offer, the state filed a motion seeking to admit evidence under Rule 404(b), Ariz. R. Evid., of another drug sale in which Rodriguez-Valenzuela had been involved. Rodriguez-Valenzuela submitted an affidavit stating his attorneys had not "explained" his case to him and he did not understand the importance of the Rule 404(b) evidence.

Rule 15.8 addresses the state's disclosure requirements regarding pending plea offers and allows for sanctions if the state fails to reinstate a plea offer after failing to make required disclosure that was material to the defendant's decision to accept or reject the offer.

¶4 The trial court summarily dismissed Rodriguez-Valenzuela's petition. It noted, first, that both of Rodriguez-Valenzuela's attorneys had "correctly explained the plea agreements and exposure at trial" and had advised Rodriguez-Valenzuela about the strength of the state's case. The court also concluded that a motion under Rule 15.8 would have been denied, even had Rodriguez-Valenzuela not waived that claim by pleading guilty. Last, the court determined Rodriguez-Valenzuela had not shown prejudice because he "would not have received a less severe sentence had he accepted either plea." This petition for review followed.

¶5 On review, Rodriguez-Valenzuela argues he has presented a colorable claim of ineffective assistance. The core of his claim is that he did not understand that it would have been better for him to have accepted the first plea offer from the state, and that counsel is to blame for his decision to reject that offer, as well as the second one. "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." State v. Bennett, 213 Ariz. 562, ¶ 21 (2006) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)). "[A] defendant may obtain post-conviction relief on the basis that counsel's ineffective assistance led the defendant to make an uninformed decision to accept or reject a plea bargain, thereby making his or her decision involuntary." State v. Banda, 232 Ariz. 582, ¶ 12 (App. 2013). A defendant must show he would have acted differently absent counsel's error. See id. ¶¶ 11-12.

¶6 We agree with the trial court that Rodriguez-Valenzuela's claim warrants summary denial. Rodriguez-Valenzuela is correct that we are generally required to take a defendant's assertions as true when evaluating a post-conviction claim. See State v. Jackson, 209 Ariz. 13, ¶ 6 (App. 2004). But that principle is not without limits—courts are not required to accept a conclusory affidavit that is "completely lacking in detail." State v. Krum, 183 Ariz. 288, 294 (1995); see also Donald, 198 Ariz. 406, ¶ 21 (to warrant evidentiary hearing, post-conviction claim "must consist of more than conclusory assertions").

¶7 Rodriguez-Valenzuela's affidavit indicates that his first counsel did not "explain[]" "the facts of [his] case" to him. He does not, however, identify what about the case he failed to understand, much less how it led to his decision to reject the state's first plea offer. Rodriguez-Valenzuela provides marginally more detailed information regarding his second counsel's purported shortcomings in failing to advise him about "the importance" of evidence identified in the state's Rule 404(b) motion. But he fails to assert that information was material to his decision to reject the second plea offer, claiming in his affidavit only that he would have accepted the first offer—which he had already rejected when the state filed that motion. Thus, even were his conclusory assertions sufficient, this claim necessarily fails. See Banda, 232 Ariz. 582, ¶ 12.

¶8 Rodriguez-Valenzuela also refers to his argument made below that, following the state's motion, counsel should have sought to have the first plea reinstated as a disclosure violation pursuant to Rule 15.8. To the extent he intends to raise that claim on review, he has not established the trial court erred by rejecting it. By pleading guilty, Rodriguez-Valenzuela waived "all non-jurisdictional defects and defenses, including claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, except those that relate to the validity of a plea." Banda, 232 Ariz. 582, ¶ 12. He has not explained how counsel's failure to ask for reinstatement of the first plea offer rendered his later plea invalid. And, even had Rodriguez-Valenzuela not waived this claim by pleading guilty, he does not acknowledge, much less meaningfully address, the trial court's conclusion that the motion would have been denied in any event. Thus, he has waived this claim on review by failing to develop it, and we do not address it further. See State v. Stefanovich, 232 Ariz. 154, ¶ 16 (App. 2013) (defendant waives his claim on review where he fails to provide relevant authority or meaningfully develop the argument).

¶9 We grant review but deny relief.


Summaries of

State v. Rodriguez-Valenzuela

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO
Apr 15, 2021
No. 2 CA-CR 2020-0239-PR (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 15, 2021)
Case details for

State v. Rodriguez-Valenzuela

Case Details

Full title:THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. JESUS GABRIEL RODRIGUEZ-VALENZUELA…

Court:ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO

Date published: Apr 15, 2021

Citations

No. 2 CA-CR 2020-0239-PR (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 15, 2021)