State v. Munoz, 1 CA-CR 16-0629-PRPC

Munoz, a native Spanish-speaker, was indicted on multiple sexual-offense counts and accepted a plea on the day of trial to: attempted sexual conduct with a minor, attempted molestation of a child, and sexual conduct with a minor under 15. Other counts were dismissed.
The plea explicitly stated Munoz agreed the offenses caused emotional harm to the victim and stipulated a sentencing range of 20–24 years on the sexual-conduct count plus lifetime probation on the others.
Munoz received 24 years' imprisonment and lifetime probation; he later filed a timely Rule 32 petition claiming the sentence was illegally aggravated and counsel was ineffective.
Munoz asserted he did not understand English, did not appreciate the significance of admitting emotional harm (and thus lacked notice of the aggravator), and believed he would receive only 20 years.
The superior court summarily dismissed the petition; Munoz appealed and this court granted review but denied relief, finding the plea and stipulation to the aggravator were knowing and voluntary and counsel was not shown to be deficient or prejudicial.

Issue	Munoz's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether Munoz lacked notice that emotional harm would be used as an aggravator	Munoz says he did not understand admission of harm and thus lacked notice of the aggravator	Plea agreement and plea colloquy expressly included/admitted the harm aggravator; Munoz waived notice by stipulation	Court held Munoz had notice and waived Apprendi rights by admitting the harm
Whether the plea was involuntary due to misunderstanding of sentence range	Munoz claims he subjectively believed he would get 20 years rather than up to 24	Court repeatedly stated 20–24 range; Munoz affirmed understanding and voluntariness	Court held the plea was voluntary; mistaken subjective belief insufficient without objective support
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to explain consequences of admitting harm	Munoz alleges counsel did not advise him of consequences, so plea/incriminating admission was uninformed	Counsel was fluent in Spanish, avowed to have explained the plea; Munoz said he understood and was satisfied with counsel	Court held Munoz failed to show deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland
Whether sentence was illegally aggravated because of lack of notice or objection	Munoz argues improper aggravation based on no notice/objection	Admission in plea and stipulation established aggravator; no showing State would have acted differently or that Munoz would have rejected plea	Court held sentence not illegally aggravated; dismissal affirmed

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (facts increasing statutory maximum must be found by a jury absent waiver)
Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (U.S. 2004) (Apprendi principles applied to sentencing guidelines/judicial fact-finding)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance test: performance and prejudice)
State v. Murdaugh, 209 Ariz. 19 (Ariz. 2004) (stipulations/confessions can establish aggravating circumstances)
State v. Ring, 204 Ariz. 534 (Ariz. 2003) (discusses allocation of factfinding between jury and judge in sentencing)
State ex rel. Smith v. Conn, 209 Ariz. 195 (App. 2004) (defendant entitled to notice of aggravating factors the State intends to use)
State v. Pritchett, 27 Ariz. App. 701 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1976) (subjective misunderstanding of sentence insufficient to render plea involuntary without objective justification)
State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573 (Ariz. 2012) (standard of review for summary dismissal of Rule 32 petitions)
State v. Nash, 143 Ariz. 392 (Ariz. 1985) (Arizona recognition of Strickland standards)
State v. Salazar, 146 Ariz. 540 (Ariz. 1985) (if ineffective-assistance test fails on one prong, court need not address the other)