State v. Griego, 1 CA-CR 16-0174

Background

Late Sept. 2013: Ricardo Martinez and Rafael Machado planned a home invasion and approached confidential informant Jose Torres; Torres notified police and agreed not to participate.
Oct. 1, 2013: Intruder(s) entered a residence; E.M. was shot and later died. Survivors could not identify the shooter because his face was covered and a weapon light obscured vision.
Witnesses (David Ochoa, Martinez, Machado, and Torres) testified that Vincent Griego participated and that Griego shot E.M.; codefendants cooperated in exchange for plea deals.
Police seized sneakers from Griego consistent with a footprint at the scene; Griego was charged with first-degree (felony) murder, multiple counts of burglary, kidnapping, armed robbery, aggravated assault, and disorderly conduct.
Jury convicted Griego on all counts except one kidnapping count dismissed by acquittal motion; court imposed life with 25 years before parole eligibility on the murder count and concurrent prison terms on other counts.
On appeal, Griego challenged (1) denial of a motion to vacate based on newly disclosed impeachment email (Brady claim), (2) alleged prosecutorial misconduct in closing, and (3) presentence incarceration credit calculation.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether nondisclosure of an email constituted Brady/Giglio material requiring vacatur	State: nondisclosure did not affect outcome; Torres was cross-examined about plea and pending sentencing	Griego: an email suggesting a better deal for Torres was impeachment material and withheld, undermining verdicts	Court: No Brady violation; email’s relevance uncertain and Torres already admitted being “at the mercy” of the State, so no reasonable probability of a different result; motion denied.
Whether prosecutor misstated evidence in closing (collusion opportunity) constituting misconduct	State: prosecutor’s argument that witness consistency supported credibility was a reasonable inference from their denials of coordinating testimony	Griego: prosecutor improperly told jurors witnesses lacked opportunity to collude despite recorded meeting among them	Court: No fundamental error; statements reasonably inferred from testimony, prosecutor did not assert impossibility of collusion, and jury instructions cured any potential prejudice.
Whether Griego received proper presentence incarceration credit on concurrent sentences	State: sentence calculation correct per court at sentencing	Griego: only Count 1 reflected 867 days’ credit; concurrent sentences require same credit on each count	Court: Agreed with Griego; gave 867 days’ credit on each count and modified judgment accordingly.
Whether convictions and sentences should be reversed based on the above errors	State: convictions supported by multiple cooperating witnesses and physical evidence; any errors harmless or corrected	Griego: cumulative errors warrant reversal or vacatur	Court: Convictions affirmed; sentences affirmed as modified for correct credit and statutory clarification of parole-eligibility period.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Parker, 231 Ariz. 391 (2013) (deferential abuse-of-discretion review for motions to vacate)
Reeves v. Markle, 119 Ariz. 159 (1978) (trial judge’s special perspective on evidence/verdict relationship)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose evidence favorable to the accused)
Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) (impeachment evidence affecting witness credibility must be disclosed)
Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999) (standards for proving a Brady violation)
United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (materiality requires a reasonable probability of a different result)
State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561 (2005) (standard for reviewing unpreserved prosecutorial misconduct claims)
State v. Morris, 215 Ariz. 324 (2007) (prosecutor may argue all reasonable inferences but not unsupported insinuations)
State v. Newell, 212 Ariz. 389 (2006) (presumption that jurors follow limiting and final instructions)
State v. Cofield, 210 Ariz. 84 (App. 2005) (failure to give full presentence credit on concurrent terms is fundamental error)