State v. Loya, 1 CA-CR 15-0814-PRPC

Background

Rebecca Loya drove after consuming alcohol, crashed into another vehicle in Arizona, and two children were killed; she had a BAC estimated between .185 and .241.
A jury convicted Loya of two counts of second-degree murder, two counts of aggravated assault, and two counts of extreme DUI; the longest concurrent term was 16 years.
On direct appeal this court affirmed, finding some prosecutorial remarks improper but not so prejudicial as to require reversal.
Loya filed a timely Rule 32 post-conviction petition alleging numerous instances of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel (failure to object to misconduct, failure to exclude post-Miranda statements, failure to consult fibromyalgia experts, poor explanation of mental-state distinctions, poor trial preparation, etc.).
The superior court dismissed most claims as precluded or not colorable; on review Loya narrowed focus to two claims: (1) lack of fibromyalgia expert consultation/explanation of its effect on her mental state, and (2) failure to adequately explain distinctions among criminal negligence, recklessness, and extreme recklessness.
The superior court found no prejudice from counsel’s conduct—alcohol intoxication undermined any fibromyalgia theory and jury instructions plus deliberation time undercut the mental-state claim—so relief was denied; this court granted review but affirmed the denial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to consult fibromyalgia experts and present evidence linking fibromyalgia to Loya’s mental state	Loya: experts would explain how fibromyalgia and its treatment affected perception/judgment, mitigating culpability	State: Loya’s high BAC would largely negate any probative effect of fibromyalgia evidence; no prejudice shown	Court: No colorable claim; superior court did not abuse discretion in finding no prejudice
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to adequately explain differences among criminal negligence, recklessness, and extreme recklessness	Loya: counsel’s explanation was inadequate and jurors may have misunderstood complex legal distinctions	State: Jury received correct instructions at opening and closing, deliberated nearly four hours, sent only a request for the police report—no request for mental-state clarification	Court: No colorable claim; superior court reasonably concluded no prejudice from counsel’s explanations
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to object to alleged prosecutorial misconduct and to challenge admissibility of post-invocation statements	Loya: counsel failed to object to several improper prosecutorial statements and to exclude post-invocation remarks	State: This court on direct appeal already found misconduct did not cause prejudice; prosecutor did not comment on Loya’s invocation of rights so exclusion challenge lacked merit	Court: Claims fail—either precluded by direct appeal or not colorable under Strickland
Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising additional prosecutorial-misconduct claims on direct appeal	Loya: appellate counsel omitted additional misconduct claims	State: Loya did not identify the omitted comments and improperly incorporated prior filings by reference	Court: Dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 32 pleading requirements and as not colorable

Key Cases Cited

State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573 (discussing standard of review for Rule 32 rulings)
State v. Hughes, 193 Ariz. 72 (prosecutorial misconduct requires showing it infected trial with unfairness)
Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637 (prosecutorial remarks and due process standard)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong ineffective assistance standard)
State v. Nash, 143 Ariz. 392 (adopting Strickland framework in Arizona)
State v. Salazar, 146 Ariz. 540 (no need to address both Strickland prongs if one fails)
State v. Robinson, 153 Ariz. 191 (appellate affirmation may be upheld on any record-supported basis)
State v. Valdez, 160 Ariz. 9 (trial strategy and failure to object not automatically ineffective assistance)
Canion v. Cole, 210 Ariz. 598 (strict compliance with Rule 32 required)
State v. Moody, 208 Ariz. 424 (brief or cursory argument is inadequate on appeal)
State v. White, 16 Ariz. App. 279 (comments on defendant’s failure to testify may violate rights)