Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2017-0417-PR
05-16-2018
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. LAZARO GONZALEZ CEPERO, Petitioner.
Lazaro Cepero, Tucson 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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. CR20151632001
The Honorable Howard Fell, Judge Pro Tempore
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
Lazaro Cepero, Tucson
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 Petitioner Lazaro Cepero 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 review a court's denial of post-conviction relief for an abuse of discretion. State v. Roseberry, 237 Ariz. 507, ¶ 7 (2015). We find none here and, accordingly, although we grant review, we deny relief.
¶2 After a jury trial, Cepero was convicted of robbery and aggravated robbery, and sentenced to concurrent, presumptive prison terms, the longer of which is 7.5 years. This court affirmed his convictions and sentences on appeal. State v. Cepero, No. 2 CA-CR 2016-0172 (Ariz. App. Mar. 29, 2017) (mem. decision). Cepero filed a timely notice of post-conviction relief and, after appointed counsel notified the court he could find no issue to "be raised as a basis for relief" under Rule 32, Cepero filed a pro se petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
¶3 According to Cepero, his attorney failed to inform him of a pre-arraignment plea offer that would have limited his sentence to a three-year prison term and, had he known of the offer, he would have accepted it. But as detailed in the trial court's order summarily denying relief, although Cepero maintained the early plea agreement was attached to his petition as "Appendix A," no such appendix was ever filed with the court, and the state informed the court that "[t]he only plea agreement that was ever extended was made available on October 27, 2015—after trial had been set." Cepero acknowledged he had rejected that pretrial offer, which provided a sentencing range spanning from 3.25 to 16.25 years. The court further noted Cepero's failure to explain the basis for his belief that the state had made a more lenient offer shortly after his arrest, and court filings indicate that, as of Cepero's arraignment, no plea offer was pending. Citing State v. Jackson, 209 Ariz. 13 (App. 2004), the court concluded Cepero failed to state a colorable claim that counsel performed deficiently with respect to an alleged plea offer because "there is no evidence that the alleged plea [offer] ever existed." This petition for review followed.
¶4 On review, Cepero maintains the trial court abused its discretion in denying relief before he filed a reply to the state's response to his petition. But we will affirm a court's decision in post-conviction relief proceedings if it is legally correct for any reason, Roseberry, 237 Ariz. 507, ¶ 7, and Cepero has failed to identify any argument he might have made in a reply that would have affected the court's decision.
Cepero also contends the state's October 2016 plea offer, which was attached to the state's response below, somehow "contradict[s]" the state's position that no previous offers had been made. But, after full review of that offer, we find no merit in his assertion that "the facts . . . in support of the alleged errors are set forth" in that document. --------
¶5 In its ruling, the trial court clearly identified, addressed, and correctly resolved Cepero's claim in a manner sufficient to permit this or any other court to conduct a meaningful review. See State v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 274 (App. 1993). No purpose would be served by repeating the court's entire analysis here; instead, we adopt it. See id. Review having been granted, relief is denied.