State v. Calderon, 1 CA-CR 16-0635-PRPC

Joel Calderon, a teacher, pled guilty in 2014 to three counts of attempted sexual conduct with a minor in a teacher-student relationship; he admitted his conduct caused physical, emotional, or financial harm and thus was eligible for an aggravated sentence.
Plea agreement stipulated to sentences: no more than five years imprisonment on count one and lifetime probation on the other two; remaining charges dismissed.
Court accepted plea and sentenced Calderon to a mitigated three-year prison term plus lifetime probation; Calderon signed a Notice of Rights of Review.
In June 2016 Calderon filed a Rule 32 post-conviction petition alleging lifetime probation was illegal and trial counsel ineffective for not recognizing the illegality; he argued he only discovered the legal theory in May 2016.
The superior court dismissed the Rule 32 petition as untimely under Rule 32.4(a) and found Calderon failed to show newly discovered facts or an applicable exception; motion for reconsideration denied.
On review, the appellate court granted review but denied relief, holding the petition untimely and that Calderon’s sentencing and ineffective-assistance claims lacked merit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of Rule 32 petition	Calderon: petition timely because he only discovered the legal theory in May 2016 (newly discovered legal theory excuses delay)	State: Rule 32.4(a) 90-day deadline applies; Calderon offers only conclusory assertions and no newly discovered material facts	Petition properly dismissed as untimely; Calderon failed to meet Rule 32 exceptions
Legality of lifetime probation	Calderon: lifetime probation illegal; jury needed to find aggravating factors so court lacked jurisdiction	State: Lifetime probation authorized by statute at the time; Calderon admitted aggravating factor in plea, waiving jury/Apprendi rights	Lifetime probation was lawful; sentencing court had jurisdiction
Need for jury to find aggravating facts (Apprendi/Blakely claim)	Calderon: Apprendi rights required jury finding of aggravating facts to permit increased penalty	State: Defendant may waive jury rights by stipulation or judicial fact-finding; Calderon admitted harm in plea agreement	Apprendi claim fails because Calderon stipulated to the aggravating fact in the plea
Ineffective assistance of counsel based on illegal sentence	Calderon: counsel ineffective for failing to recognize and challenge purportedly illegal lifetime probation	State: Underlying illegality claim fails, so ineffective-assistance claim lacks a viable predicate	Ineffective-assistance claim fails because sentence was legal and no colorable jurisdictional error existed

State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573 (app. 2012) (standard of review for Rule 32 rulings)
State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537 (app. 2012) (petitioner’s burden to show error on review)
State v. Rosario, 195 Ariz. 264 (app. 1999) (untimely Rule 32 notices may be summarily dismissed)
State v. Saenz, 197 Ariz. 487 (app. 2000) (definition and standard for newly discovered material facts)
State v. Peek, 219 Ariz. 182 (app. 2008) (lifetime probation available for attempted child molestation after statutory amendment)
State v. Price, 217 Ariz. 182 (app. 2007) (defendant may waive Apprendi rights by stipulation or consenting to judicial fact-finding)
State v. Murdaugh, 209 Ariz. 19 (2004) (stipulations/admissions establish aggravating circumstances)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (jury determination of facts increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum)
Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) (limitations and waiver principles regarding judicial fact-finding and sentence enhancement)