State of Arizona v. Abel Daniel Hidalgo, 390 P.3d 783

Background

In 2001, Abel Daniel Hidalgo shot and killed Michael Cordova and Jose Rojas in Cordova’s auto-body shop; he later confessed and pleaded guilty in 2015 to two counts of first-degree murder and one count of first-degree burglary.
Hidalgo shot each victim multiple times; he admitted killing Cordova for $1,000 and killing Rojas to eliminate an eyewitness.
A jury found aggravators for Cordova (F(1), F(2), F(5), F(8)) and for Rojas (F(1), F(2), F(8)) and imposed the death penalty for each murder; court also imposed a separate prison term for burglary.
Pretrial, Hidalgo sought an evidentiary hearing and facial challenges to Arizona’s death-penalty statute (A.R.S. §13-751), arguing inadequate narrowing and unequal application across counties; trial court denied the hearing and rejected the constitutional claims.
Hidalgo raised additional claims at penalty phase: prosecutorial remarks allegedly diminishing jury responsibility, revocation of his self-representation for refusing to proceed on trial date, denial of an evidentiary hearing on a motion for new counsel, and submitted mitigation evidence at sentencing.
The Arizona Supreme Court conducted independent review of the death sentences (murders occurred before Aug. 1, 2002) and affirmed convictions and sentences.

Issues

Issue	Hidalgo’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Facial challenge to §13-751 narrowing	Statute lists so many aggravators that virtually every first-degree murder is death-eligible; accused denied due process without hearing	Statute plus jury findings, individualized sentencing, and appellate review provide constitutional narrowing; evidentiary hearing not required	Rejected: no hearing abuse; statutory scheme and jury findings satisfy narrowing requirement
Inter-county disparity / equal protection	Poorer counties cannot afford to seek death; disparate geographic application violates Eighth Amendment and state equal-privileges	Prosecutorial discretion and resource differences do not make death sentences unconstitutional absent purposeful discrimination	Rejected: disparities alone do not show unconstitutional discrimination
Prosecutor’s closing remarks at penalty phase	Remarks telling jurors death is required if no sufficient mitigation diminished jury’s sense of responsibility (Caldwell)	Statements accurately stated Arizona law; court instructions preserved jury responsibility	Rejected: no fundamental error; remarks consistent with statute and instructions
Revocation of self-representation	Revocation was improper because denial of a typewriter and Hidalgo’s disability prevented preparation	Hidalgo repeatedly refused to proceed on firm trial date despite warnings; court permissibly revoked pro se status for refusal to go forward	Rejected: revocation was within discretion because Hidalgo refused to proceed on scheduled date

Key Cases Cited

Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (death-penalty arbitrariness principle)
Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (upheld guided capital sentencing with aggravating factors and review)
Tuilaepa v. California, 512 U.S. 967 (eligibility vs selection distinction; aggravator must narrow subclass and not be vague)
Lowenfield v. Phelps, 484 U.S. 231 (narrowing function can be performed by jury findings)
Zant v. Stephens, 462 U.S. 862 (narrowing and proportionality in capital sentencing)
Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320 (prosecutor may not minimize jury’s sentencing responsibility)
McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (statistical disparities do not establish constitutional violation absent purposeful discrimination)
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (right to self-representation and limits on revocation)
State v. Gomez, 231 Ariz. 219 (no hearing required when facts not in dispute; grounds for revoking pro se)
State v. Greenway, 170 Ariz. 155 (rejecting similar narrowing challenge to Arizona statute)