State v. Lechuga, 1 CA-CR 15-0780-PRPC

Petitioner Peter M. Lechuga was indicted on two counts of aggravated driving or actual physical control while under the influence and the state alleged five prior felonies (including two prior DUI-related felonies).
Lechuga pleaded guilty to one count with one prior felony; the state dismissed the second count and remaining historical-prior allegations; court sentenced him to five years (within the stipulated plea range) and awarded presentence credit.
Lechuga filed a timely Rule 32 post-conviction relief petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel (pre-plea and at sentencing), factual disputes about DUI evidence, and that counsel failed to present mitigating facts at sentencing.
Appointed PCR counsel reviewed the record, found no meritorious claims, filed notice of completion, and Lechuga filed a pro se supplement raising the above claims.
The superior court denied and dismissed the petition; Lechuga sought review in the Court of Appeals, which granted review but denied relief, finding no abuse of discretion.

Issue	Lechuga's Argument	State/Respondent's Argument	Held
Whether counsel rendered ineffective assistance pre-plea (failure to challenge BAC variance and to investigate defense that he was forced to drive)	Counsel failed to challenge breath/blood evidence and did not investigate/raise forced-to-drive defense	Plea waives non-jurisdictional pre-plea defects; record supports factual basis for plea	Barred by plea waiver; no colorable IAC shown
Whether counsel was ineffective at sentencing (failure to present mitigating circumstances)	Counsel did not advocate or present mitigating facts resulting in harsher sentence	Sentence was within stipulated range; court expressly found aggravators to support slight aggravation	No deficient performance or prejudice shown; sentence lawful
Whether the plea or resulting sentence was illegal	Agreed sentencing range and sentence were improper/illegal	Plea specified range; Lechuga knew range after settlement conference; sentence within stipulated range with aggravators found	Sentence legal and within stipulated range; no abuse of discretion
Whether the plea had an adequate factual basis (sufficiency of evidence)	Factual challenges to DUI evidence undermine plea validity	Extended record (including blood test) supplies a sufficient factual basis; guilty plea requires strong evidence, not proof beyond reasonable doubt	Record supplies factual basis; plea valid

State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390 (recognizing standard of appellate review for PCR rulings)
State v. Moreno, 134 Ariz. 199 (plea waives non-jurisdictional pre-plea defenses)
Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258 (guilty plea waives prior independent constitutional claims)
State v. Salinas, 181 Ariz. 104 (standards for factual basis of guilty plea)
State v. Sodders, 130 Ariz. 23 (extended record may establish factual basis for plea)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong ineffective assistance of counsel test)
State v. Nash, 143 Ariz. 392 (Arizona application of Strickland)
State v. Salazar, 146 Ariz. 540 (no need to decide both Strickland prongs if one fails)
State v. Schrock, 149 Ariz. 433 (deference to superior court’s discretion on Rule 32 relief)