State v. Contreras, 1 CA-CR 16-0143-PRPC

Petitioner Edgar Daniel Contreras pled guilty to conspiracy to commit possession of dangerous drugs for sale and received a 10-year sentence under a plea agreement.
He filed a timely Rule 32 post-conviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) for failing to move to suppress evidence recovered during a warrantless entry of his home.
Police had been called for a reported domestic violence incident; officers observed through a window Contreras and a woman appearing to hide or move items, then Contreras fled and the woman exited and reported two young children (2 years and 7 months) remained inside.
Officers entered to check on the children and for safety; inside they smelled marijuana, saw contraband (marijuana, pills, electronic items, tires), and found a handgun under a couch cushion where the woman had tried to hide something.
The State argued the entry was justified by the emergency-aid exception and that inevitable discovery applied based on what officers observed and methamphetamine found in a hoodie left in the yard when Contreras fled.
The superior court summarily denied relief; the Court of Appeals granted review but denied relief, concluding Contreras failed to state a colorable IAC claim warranting an evidentiary hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress evidence from a warrantless entry	Contreras: counsel should have moved to suppress because the warrantless entry/ search violated Fourth Amendment and Arizona Constitution	State: entry valid under emergency-aid exception given young children and potential perpetrator; evidence also recoverable via inevitable discovery	Court: Contreras failed to show counsel's performance was objectively deficient or a reasonable probability of different outcome; denial affirmed
Whether Contreras was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his Rule 32 IAC claim	Contreras: factual disputes (e.g., exigent circumstances) justify an evidentiary hearing	State: record facts (observations through window, children inside, meth in hoodie) negate need for hearing; petition lacks more than conclusory allegations	Court: no colorable claim presented; summary denial proper — no evidentiary hearing required

State v. D'Ambrosio, 156 Ariz. 71 (1988) (standard for entitlement to Rule 32 evidentiary hearing)
State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573 (2012) (purpose of Rule 32 evidentiary hearing to resolve material factual disputes)
State v. Borbon, 146 Ariz. 392 (1985) (mere generalizations and unsubstantiated IAC claims do not require a hearing)
State v. Rosario, 195 Ariz. 264 (App. 1999) (elements to prove IAC: deficient performance and reasonable probability of different outcome)
State v. Bennett, 237 Ariz. 356 (App. 2015) (emergency-aid exception can justify warrantless entry to protect children and others)
State v. Davolt, 207 Ariz. 191 (2004) (inevitable discovery doctrine can validate admission of evidence discoverable by lawful means)
State v. Febles, 210 Ariz. 589 (App. 2005) (requirements to avoid summary dismissal of Rule 32 petition)
State v. Donald, 198 Ariz. 406 (App. 2000) (Rule 32 claim must be more than conclusory to warrant hearing)