State v. Cassise, 1 CA-CR 14-0852-PRPC

Petitioner Louis Joseph Cassise pled guilty to ten counts of public sexual indecency involving ten different minor victims on four dates.
Sentencing: consecutive aggravated 2-year prison terms for counts 1 and 2; lifetime probation for remaining counts per plea agreement.
Cassise challenged: (1) aggravation for counts 1–2 (no evidence of harm; mitigation outweighed aggravation), (2) consecutive sentences (asserting counts 1 and 2 arose from a single act), (3) lifetime probation excessive, (4) prosecutor violated plea agreement by recommending presumptive sentences, and (5) ineffective assistance for counsel’s failure to raise these issues.
Superior court relied on harm to victims as sole aggravator, presentence report materials, State’s sentencing memo, and a victim representative’s letter when imposing aggravated and consecutive sentences.
Cassise failed to include some sentencing materials in the record on appeal; court presumed missing materials supported the trial court’s decision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether aggravated sentences for counts 1–2 were improper	Cassise: no evidence of victim harm; mitigation outweighed aggravation	State: court found victim harm as aggravator based on PSI and attachments	Held: Aggravation affirmed; court reasonably found harm and relied on materials (presumed supportive)
Whether consecutive sentences were improper because counts 1–2 arose from a single act	Cassise: counts derive from single act, so should not be consecutive	State: single act can support consecutive sentences if multiple victims are affected	Held: Consecutive sentences permissible where a single act affects multiple victims
Whether lifetime probation is excessive	Cassise: lifetime probation is unduly onerous	State: lifetime probation was stipulated in plea agreement	Held: Lifetime probation affirmed — Cassise stipulated to it in plea deal
Whether prosecutor breached plea agreement by recommending presumptive sentences and counsel ineffective for not raising errors	Cassise: prosecutor’s recommendation violated plea; counsel ineffective for not objecting	State: plea allowed sentencing within statutory range; prosecutor may urge sentences within plea; no colorable sentencing error	Held: No breach; no colorable ineffective-assistance claim because underlying claims lack merit

State v. Mendoza, 181 Ariz. 472 (App. 1995) (appellant must ensure record contains materials necessary for review; missing record items are presumed to support trial court)
State v. Harvey, 193 Ariz. 472 (App. 1998) (weighing aggravating and mitigating circumstances is for the trial court)
State v. White, 160 Ariz. 377 (App. 1989) (court may impose consecutive sentences when a single act affects multiple victims)
State v. Ramirez, 126 Ariz. 464 (App. 1980) (issues not raised below generally waived on post-conviction review)
State v. Wagstaff, 161 Ariz. 66 (App. 1988) (same principle on procedural default for unraised claims)
State v. Bortz, 169 Ariz. 575 (App. 1991) (claims not raised in superior court are ordinarily precluded on collateral review)