State v. Alvarado, 1 CA-CR 16-0415

Background

Defendant Ivan Alvarado was charged with promoting prison contraband (class 2), possession of marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia, and criminal impersonation; jury acquitted on impersonation but convicted on the other three. A renewed judgment of acquittal on the promoting-prison-contraband charge was granted, reversed on State appeal, and the conviction reinstated.
After remand the trial court imposed an 11.25‑year presumptive term (including a 2‑year enhancement for committing the offense while on pretrial felony release); that sentence was later modified to add one day’s credit on appeal.
In post‑conviction proceedings the parties agreed Alvarado was entitled to resentencing without the 2‑year release enhancement; at resentencing the court imposed a mitigated seven‑year term.
Alvarado challenged (1) the constitutionality of treating promoting prison contraband with marijuana as a class 2 felony (equal protection), (2) the trial court’s consideration of mitigation at resentencing, and sought (3) appellate reduction of his sentence, and (4) relief for ineffective assistance of counsel regarding plea negotiations.
The superior court denied ineffective assistance relief on the plea‑negotiation claim after an evidentiary hearing; the court found counsel’s performance adequate and Alvarado not credible as to willingness to accept the plea.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the sentence and denied relief on the ineffective assistance claim.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Constitutionality of §13‑2505(C) classification (equal protection)	Alvarado: treating small‑amount marijuana as class 2 is irrational and punishes him more harshly than others with more dangerous non‑listed contraband	State: legislature rationally classified certain contraband (weapons, drugs, marijuana) as presenting greater threats to facility security	No equal protection violation; statute survives rational basis review; classification is rational
Consideration of mitigation at resentencing	Alvarado: court failed to fully consider mitigation and should have imposed absolute minimum	State: court read the file, heard witnesses/arguments, and has broad discretion to weigh mitigation	No fundamental error; court considered mitigation and permissibly found only limited mitigation; no abuse of discretion
Motion to reduce sentence under A.R.S. §13‑4037(B)	Alvarado: request for appellate reduction as excessive	State: sentencing within trial court’s discretion; no abuse of discretion shown	Denied; no grounds to modify sentence
Ineffective assistance regarding plea negotiations	Alvarado: counsel advised rejection of a favorable plea based on overconfidence in trial/acquittal on appeal; would have accepted plea but for counsel	State: counsel’s performance was reasonable; trial court found Alvarado not credible that he would have accepted the plea	Denied; trial court’s credibility findings supported by evidence; no deficient performance or prejudice shown

Key Cases Cited

State v. Alvarez, 205 Ariz. 110 (App. 2003) (illegal sentence is fundamental error)
State v. Davolt, 207 Ariz. 191 (2004) (de novo review of constitutionality of sentencing statute)
State v. Tocco, 156 Ariz. 116 (1988) (presumption of constitutionality; challenger’s burden)
State v. Arnett, 119 Ariz. 38 (1978) (specification of punishment is legislative policy)
State v. Hammonds, 192 Ariz. 528 (1998) (rational basis standard does not require least intrusive means)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Cazares, 205 Ariz. 425 (App. 2003) (trial court must give mitigating evidence due consideration but need not find it mitigating)
State v. La Mountain, 125 Ariz. 547 (1980) (appellate reduction of sentence under §13‑4037(B) should be exercised with caution)