347 P.3d 1151
Ariz. Ct. App.2015Background
- Terrazas seeks post-conviction relief under Rule 32 after conviction for manslaughter and a 10.5-year sentence.
- At trial, Terrazas was represented by a licensed attorney and a law student certified under Rule 38(d).
- The law student’s Rule 38(d) certification expired before Terrazas’s second trial, but the licensed attorney remained counsel of record.
- Terrazas challenged the trial representation, arguing the uncertified student violated his right to counsel and demanded relief without showing prejudice.
- The trial court denied relief; the appellate court previously vacated a restitution order but affirmed the conviction.
- On review, the court recognizes complete deprivation of counsel as a structural error but finds no violation here because a licensed attorney supervised the proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the uncertified former student's participation violate the right to counsel? | Terrazas | State | Not violated; licensed attorney supervision sufficed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390 (Ariz. 2007) (presumptively prejudicial if complete deprivation; abuse of discretion standard for Rule 32 relief)
- Solina v. United States, 709 F.2d 160 (2d Cir. 1983) (unlicensed counsel per se prejudicial when not authorized to practice)
- In re Denzel W., 930 N.E.2d 974 (Ill. 2010) (presence of licensed counsel not canceled by noncompliant law student)