Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2014-0242-PR
08-01-2014
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. FRANCISCO EDUARDO SANCHEZ, Petitioner.
Francisco Eduardo sanchez, El Paso, Texas 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24.
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR1998015465
The Honorable Harriett Chavez, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
Francisco Eduardo sanchez, El Paso, Texas In Propria Persona
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Vásquez authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Kelly and Judge Howard concurred.
VÁSQUEZ, Judge:
¶1 Francisco Sanchez seeks review of the trial court's order summarily dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. We will not disturb that ruling unless the court clearly has abused its discretion. See State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390, ¶ 4, 166 P.3d 945, 948 (App. 2007). We grant review but deny relief.
¶2 In 1999, Sanchez pled guilty to one count of attempted possession of a narcotic drug for sale. The trial court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed Sanchez on a four-year term of probation. In 2013, Sanchez filed a petition for post-conviction relief, claiming that Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010), was a significant change in the law entitling him to relief. Relying on Padilla, he asserted his court-appointed counsel had failed to investigate the immigration consequences of his plea and to advise him about those consequences, rendering his plea involuntary. The court rejected this claim, correctly noting that we had determined Padilla was not retroactively applicable to defendants, like Sanchez, whose convictions were final before Padilla was decided. State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, ¶¶ 13-16, 260 P.3d 1102, 1106-07 (App. 2011); see Chaidez v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 133 S. Ct. 1103, 1113 (2013) ("[D]efendants whose convictions became final prior to Padilla . . . cannot benefit from its holding."); see also Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.4(a) (in of-right proceeding, notice of post-conviction relief "must be filed within ninety days after the entry of judgment and sentence"); State v. Towery, 204 Ariz. 386, ¶ 8, 64 P.3d 828, 831-32 (2003) ("A defendant's case becomes final when 'a judgment of conviction has been rendered, the availability of appeal exhausted, and the time for
a petition for certiorari elapsed or a petition for certiorari finally denied.'"), quoting Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 321 n.6 (1987).
¶3 On review, Sanchez acknowledges the trial court correctly rejected the claim he raised below. He instead argues, for the first time, that his plea was involuntary because his plea agreement was amended "after he had signed it and reviewed it" and that counsel had failed to properly advise him of the change. Even were this claim not barred as untimely, see Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.4(a), we do not address arguments raised for the first time on review, see Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii); State v. Ramirez, 126 Ariz. 464, 468, 616 P.2d 924, 928 (App. 1980).
¶4 For these reasons, we grant review but deny relief.