Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2013-0441-PR
02-25-2014
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. FLORENCIO ROMAN-LIZARRAGA, Petitioner.
Barbara LaWall, Pima County Attorney By Jacob R. Lines, Deputy County Attorney, Tucson Counsel for Respondent Harold Higgins P.C., Tucson By Harold L. Higgins Jr. 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24.
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Pima County
No. CR20094136003
The Honorable Jane L. Eikleberry, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL
Barbara LaWall, Pima County Attorney
By Jacob R. Lines, Deputy County Attorney, Tucson
Counsel for Respondent
Harold Higgins P.C., Tucson
By Harold L. Higgins Jr.
Counsel for Petitioner
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Eckerstrom authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Kelly and Judge Espinosa concurred. ECKERSTROM, Judge:
¶1 Petitioner Florencio Roman-Lizarraga seeks review of the trial court's order denying his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. "We will not disturb a trial court's ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief absent a clear abuse of discretion." State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390, ¶ 4, 166 P.3d 945, 948 (App. 2007). Roman-Lizarraga has not sustained his burden of establishing such abuse here.
¶2 After a jury trial in absentia, Roman-Lizarraga was convicted of conspiracy to possess a narcotic drug for sale, possession of a narcotic drug for sale, and sale of a narcotic drug. Appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and this court affirmed the convictions and sentences on appeal. State v. Roman-Lizarraga, No. 2 CA-CR 2011-0048 (memorandum decision filed Oct. 27, 2011).
¶3 Roman-Lizarraga thereafter initiated a proceeding for post-conviction relief, arguing in his petition that he had received ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. He maintained trial counsel was ineffective in failing to communicate a plea offer to him, to "maintain contact" with him, to "properly advise the court of the reasons for [his] failure to appear," to make appropriate motions and objections, to advise him of his right to present witnesses at sentencing, and to object to certain aggravating factors at sentencing. He claimed appellate counsel was ineffective because she had filed "a 'no merit' brief which did not conform to Anders," failed to raise certain issues, and did not advise him of his right to file a supplemental brief. The trial court summarily denied relief.
¶4 On review, Roman-Lizarraga repeats most of his arguments made below and argues the trial court abused its discretion in rejecting them without an evidentiary hearing. We cannot say the court abused its discretion in denying Roman-Lizarraga's petition for post-conviction relief. The court clearly identified the claims he had raised and resolved them correctly in a thorough, well-reasoned minute entry, which we adopt. See State v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 274, 866 P.2d 1358, 1360 (App. 1993) (when trial court has correctly ruled on issues "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 emphasize that the court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting Roman-Lizarraga's claim that counsel had not informed him of a plea offer. As the court noted, upon his pretrial release, he absconded and failed to maintain contact with his attorney as was required. Roman-Lizarraga has not argued or provided evidence to show either that his absconding was due to the lack of a plea offer or that trial counsel was required to provide him with the plea offer more quickly, which had been mailed to counsel on November 17, before his release on December 1.
In his petition for review, Roman-Lizarraga apparently abandons his sentencing-error claim which had been based on the vacated case of State v. Lara, 170 Ariz. 203, 823 P.2d 70 (App. 1990), vacated, 171 Ariz. 282, 830 P.2d 803 (1992), and his inaccurate claim that appellate counsel failed to comply with Anders.
¶5 Therefore, although the petition for review is granted, relief is denied.