State v. Barriga
1 CA-CR 15-0816-PRPC
| Ariz. Ct. App. | May 18, 2017Background
- In 2014 Rudy Barriga pled guilty to two amended counts of attempted molestation of a child and one count of sexual conduct with a minor (dangerous crimes against children) and was sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment plus two lifetime probation tails.
- Barriga filed a timely pro se Rule 32 post-conviction relief petition arguing his plea was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary due to ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
- He alleged three principal defects: counsel failed to advise him of the court’s settlement-conference/DONALD advisement, failed to advise him about doubts regarding the State’s evidence, and failed to tell him about three earlier, allegedly more favorable plea offers.
- The superior court dismissed the petition, finding no constitutional right to a settlement conference and that those advisements were unnecessary once Barriga accepted the plea; the court also found Barriga’s allegations undeveloped and not colorable.
- On review the appellate court granted review but denied relief, concluding Barriga failed to meet his burden to show deficient performance or prejudice and did not present specific, supported claims warranting an evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to advise Barriga of a court-ordered settlement conference / DONALD advisement | Barriga: counsel didn’t inform him about the settlement conference or a Donald advisement, rendering his plea unknowing | State: no constitutional right to a settlement conference; once plea was accepted Donald advisement was unnecessary | Court: no colorable claim; acceptance of plea made advisement unnecessary; claim denied |
| Whether counsel failed to advise Barriga about specific doubts in the State’s evidence | Barriga: counsel did not inform him about specific evidentiary doubts that would have affected his plea decision | State: plea waives opportunity to contest evidence; Barriga did not specify or support the alleged doubts | Court: allegations were vague and unsupported; no deficient performance or prejudice shown |
| Whether counsel failed to inform Barriga of prior, more favorable plea offers | Barriga: counsel failed to convey three earlier plea offers that would have resulted in less prison time | State: Barriga did not identify or prove the alleged offers or explain resulting prejudice | Court: unsupported, undeveloped claim; no Strickland showing; claim denied |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by not investigating claims or holding an evidentiary hearing | Barriga: trial court should have investigated and held a hearing on his claims | State: court need not investigate; hearing unnecessary where claims are general and unsubstantiated | Court: no obligation to investigate; general allegations do not require a hearing; claim denied |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Donald, 198 Ariz. 406 (App. 2000) (discusses advisals and counsel-related claims tied to plea decisions)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- State v. D’Ambrosio, 156 Ariz. 71 (1988) (trial court discretion in deciding whether a petition presents a colorable claim)
- State v. Rosario, 195 Ariz. 264 (App. 1999) (petitioner's burden to show provable reality, not speculation)
- State v. Quick, 177 Ariz. 314 (App. 1993) (guilty plea waives nonjurisdictional defects except those directly related to the plea)
- State v. Borbon, 146 Ariz. 392 (1985) (no evidentiary hearing required for general or unsubstantiated ineffective-assistance claims)