State of Arizona v. Manuel Ovante, Jr., 231 Ariz. 180

Ovante, Jr. was sentenced to death for the 2008 murder of Damien Vickers; Trujillo was also killed and Valenzuela injured during the same incident.
Ovante and three friends went to Trujillo's home seeking methamphetamine; after an initial refusal, Ovante shot Trujillo and fired at Valenzuela and Vickers.
After the shooting, Ovante and two friends left; Vickers died in a truck while Ovante refused to help him.
Ovante pleaded guilty to two counts of first-degree murder and one count of aggravated assault, admitting two aggravators (prior serious offense and additional homicide during the offense).
The jury later sentenced Ovante to life for Trujillo, and death for Vickers, with a mitigated six-year term for the aggravated assault on Valenzuela.
This automatic direct appeal challenges the guilty pleas, the conduct of the penalty-phase, and various rulings related to sentencing and trial conduct.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Can Ovante challenge guilty pleas on direct review?	Ovante contends direct review cannot address guilty pleas.	State argues direct review covers plea validity in capital cases.	Direct review may address guilty pleas in capital cases.
Adequacy of factual basis for the guilty pleas to first-degree murder	Record unclear about premeditation due to misunderstanding of terms.	Record shows Ovante acknowledged some thought to killing; circumstantial evidence supports premeditation.	Record established a factual basis for premeditation; plea valid.
ProsecUTORIAL discretion to seek death penalty	Arizona lacks statewide standards; concern about discriminatory or improper reasons.	Discretion is properly constrained by statute and precedent; no discriminatory purpose shown.	Prosecutorial discretion to seek death is constitutional; no proven discriminatory conduct.
Prosecutor's closing argument misconduct	Prosecutor implied mitigation was absence of responsibility and used emotional portrayal.	Arguments were within wide latitude and cured by trial court instructions.	No fundamental error; jury instructions cured potential prejudice.
Final jury instructions and minute-entry discrepancy	Inconsistency between oral pronouncement and minute entry requires remand.	Overall instructions were accurate; minute-entry correction suffices.	Minute-entry corrected; oral pronouncement controls; no remand required.

State v. Djerf, 191 Ariz. 583 (Ariz. 1998) (abuse-of-discretion review for guilty plea validity; must have factual basis)
State v. Carr, 112 Ariz. 453 (Ariz. 1975) (requires factual basis for plea)
State v. Wallace, 151 Ariz. 362 (Ariz. 1986) (strong evidence of guilt required for plea)
State v. Diaz, 121 Ariz. 16 (Ariz. 1978) (record may be reviewed to determine factual basis)
State v. Herndon, 109 Ariz. 147 (Ariz. 1973) (court may determine factual basis independent of plea colloquy)
State v. DeGrate, 109 Ariz. 143 (Ariz. 1973) (trial court not required to explain distinctions between degrees of murder)
State v. Pandeli, 215 Ariz. 514 (Ariz. 2007) (mitigation weight and permissible arguments in penalty phase)
State v. Newell, 212 Ariz. 389 (Ariz. 2006) (prosecutor statements and curing prejudice via instructions)
State v. Garcia, 224 Ariz. 1 (Ariz. 2010) (overall instructions must reflect law; lack of specific aggravator identification not fatal)
State v. Zaragoza, 221 Ariz. 49 (Ariz. 2009) (comprehensive evaluation of jury instructions and aggravating factors)
State v. Nordstrom, 230 Ariz. 110 (Ariz. 2012) (penalty-phase evidence of circumstances of the crime not unduly prejudicial)
State v. Hampton, 213 Ariz. 167 (Ariz. 2006) (extraordinary weight given to multiple-murder aggravator)