State of Arizona v. Craig Michael Stefanovich
232 Ariz. 154
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Stefanovich pled guilty to aggravated DUI based on prior offenses, with the prior two convictions (Feb. 8, 2001 and Feb. 26, 2001) used to enhance sentencing.
- The trial court sentenced him to a ten-year enhanced presumptive prison term.
- He challenged the use of previous DUI offenses under the amended 84-month window, arguing ex post facto and vesting defenses.
- Stefanovich filed a Rule 32 post-conviction relief petition; the trial court summarily denied relief.
- The court held that the 84-month timeframe did not implicate ex post facto concerns and rejected arguments about retroactivity and lack of jurisdiction, as well as voluntariness and ineffective assistance claims.
- On review, the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of relief, concluding the plea was knowing and voluntary and that counsel was not ineffective.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether applying the 84-month window is retroactive ex post facto | Stefanovich asserts vested defense against using older convictions | State contends statute in effect controls and is not retroactive | No ex post facto violation; no vested rights in prior timeframe |
| Whether using prior convictions for enhancement lacked jurisdiction due to elapsed period | Forty-six the felony chronology expired, depriving jurisdiction | Statutory framework governs current offense punishment regardless of prior period | Jurisdiction not lacking; amended statute governs enhancement |
| Whether the guilty plea was involuntary due to Rule 17.6/17.2 deficiencies | Plea colloquy failed to explain effect of admitting prior felonies on sentencing | Record shows sufficient information; any defects did not render plea involuntary | Plea was voluntary and knowing; missing disclosures did not render it involuntary |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not raising the above claims | Counsel failed to preserve ex post facto/voluntariness issues | Claims are inadequately argued and insufficient to warrant relief | Claim waived; insufficient argument to prevail on ineffective-assistance theory |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Yellowmexican, 142 Ariz. 205 (Ariz. App. 1984) (retroactivity of recidivist statute not violative of ex post facto)
- Gryger v. Burke, 334 U.S. 728 (U.S. 1948) (recidivist statute is not new jeopardy; enhanced punishment for latest crime)
- O'Brien v. Escher, 204 Ariz. 459 (Ariz. App. 2003) (control of statute in effect at time of current offense governs)
- State v. Pac, 165 Ariz. 294 (Ariz. 1990) (plea voluntariness requires information essential to decision-making)
- State v. Crowder, 155 Ariz. 477 (Ariz. 1987) (plea voluntariness depends on information relevant to agreement)
- State v. Anderson, 199 Ariz. 187 (Ariz. 2000) (requirements for advising prior conviction admissions under Rule 17.6)
- Parke v. Raley, 506 U.S. 20 (U.S. 1992) (recidivism statutes upheld against constitutional challenges)
- Campa v. State, 168 Ariz. 407 (Ariz. 1980) (recidivist/statutory classification considerations)