State of Arizona v. Jose Dejesus Villegas-Rojas, 231 Ariz. 445

Villegas-Rojas pled guilty to aggravated DUI and felony endangerment under a plea agreement that dismissed another count.
The trial court imposed presumptive, concurrent sentences, the longer being 4.5 years.
He filed a Rule 32 post-conviction relief petition challenging the endangerment factual basis and asserting ineffective assistance, prosecutorial, and judicial error.
The trial court dismissed the post-conviction challenges to the endangerment conviction and denied rehearing/clarification.
On review, the court held that it would not disturb a post-conviction ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion, and found no abuse here.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is endangerment legally sufficient without an identified victim?	Villegas-Rojas contends unnamed motorists cannot satisfy the victim element.	State argues endangerment does not require an identified victim.	Yes; endangerment does not require a named victim.
Was defense counsel ineffective for not challenging the lack of an identified victim?	Villegas-Rojas argues counsel should have challenged the absence of a named victim.	State contends no ineffective assistance since the factual basis supported the plea.	No; counsel not ineffective given a legally sufficient factual basis.
Did the trial court err in relief denial by relying on Morgan over Olquin?	Villegas-Rojas urges requiring an identified victim per Olquin and rejects Morgan as controlling.	State maintains endangerment can involve unidentified victims and Morgan governs.	The court properly concluded names are not required for a legally sufficient factual basis.
Did the petition for post-conviction relief fail to show abuse of discretion?	Villegas-Rojas asserts the petition should have relief due to insufficient basis and errors.	State argues no abuse of discretion in denying relief.	No abuse; petition denied.

State v. Morgan, 128 Ariz. 362 (App. 1981) (endangerment does not require a victim to be aware of conduct; victim name not element)
State v. Olquin, 216 Ariz. 250 (App. 2007) (victim identity not always required; discusses victim elements in certain crimes)
State v. Tschilar, 200 Ariz. 427 (App. 2001) (discusses victim element distinctions in analysis)
State v. Bell, 923 P.2d 524 (Mont. 1996) (identification of particular victim not element of criminal endangerment)
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (discussion of danger posed by speeding vehicle in context of evidentiary considerations)