State v. Parks, 1 CA-CR 14-0806-PRPC

Edward Faye Parks was convicted by a jury of disorderly conduct with a weapon and two counts of aggravated assault; this court previously affirmed his convictions and sentences.
Parks filed a Rule 32 post-conviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel related to plea negotiations and advice about the State’s ability to prove aggravated assault on a police officer.
The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing at which Parks and his trial counsel gave conflicting testimony about what advice was given.
The trial court found counsel’s testimony credible, concluded counsel properly advised Parks about the State’s burden of proof, and found Parks would not have accepted the plea because he only wanted a probation-only offer.
The trial court denied relief; Parks sought review in the Court of Appeals, which granted review but denied relief, affirming the trial court’s credibility findings and legal conclusions.

Issue	Parks' Argument	State's Argument	Held
Was trial counsel ineffective in plea advice?	Counsel failed to properly advise Parks about evidence needed to prove aggravated assault on an officer.	Counsel competently advised Parks about the State’s burden and plea implications.	Denied — court credited counsel’s testimony and found no deficient performance.
Did Parks prove prejudice from alleged deficient advice?	He would have rejected trial and accepted the plea but for counsel’s error.	Parks wouldn’t have accepted anything less than probation; no prejudice shown.	Denied — court found no prejudice; Parks would not have accepted the offer.
Are the trial court’s factual findings reviewable?	(implicit) Findings should be overturned if erroneous.	Findings entitled to deference; reviewed for clear error.	Affirmed — appellate review limited; findings supported by substantial evidence.
May Parks raise new issues on review?	Attempts to present additional issues on petition for review.	Issues not raised below are procedurally barred.	Denied — new issues rejected for not being raised in Rule 32 petition.

State v. Bennett, 213 Ariz. 562 (discussing standard of review for Rule 32 rulings)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing deficient performance and prejudice test for ineffective assistance)
State v. Nash, 143 Ariz. 392 (applying Strickland in Arizona)
State v. Sasak, 178 Ariz. 182 (appellate review limited to clear-error for Rule 32 factual findings)
State v. Fritz, 157 Ariz. 139 (credibility determinations rest with the trial judge in Rule 32 proceedings)
State v. Alvarado, 158 Ariz. 89 (trial court resolves conflicting testimony)
State v. Bortz, 169 Ariz. 575 (issues not raised below cannot be raised for first time on petition for review)