State v. Ramirez, 1 CA-CR 14-0858-PRPC

Ramirez was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder and two counts of conspiracy to commit aggravated assault; one conspiracy conviction was later vacated on double jeopardy grounds on direct appeal. The longest sentence was 12 years.
On direct appeal Ramirez challenged admission of evidence that her brother had been in prison; this Court affirmed convictions (except vacating one conspiracy conviction) and sentences.
Ramirez filed a Rule 32 post-conviction relief (PCR) petition raising: ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC), challenges to the police investigation, a warrantless cell-phone search and seizure, and alleged State use of perjured testimony.
The superior court dismissed the PCR petition: it found non-IAC claims precluded because they could have been raised on direct appeal, and it rejected the IAC claim for lack of proof that counsel’s conduct was objectively unreasonable or prejudicial.
Ramirez sought review in the Court of Appeals, which granted review but denied relief, affirming the superior court’s dismissal of the IAC claim and holding other claims precluded.

Issue	Ramirez's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether PCR properly raised IAC for trial counsel	Trial counsel failed to prepare a timeline, failed to file motions in limine, and failed to object to cell-phone evidence and alleged perjured testimony	IAC claim is speculative, lacks record support, and challenged acts were reasonable tactical decisions	Denied — Ramirez failed to meet Strickland burden; claim dismissed
Whether appellate counsel IAC is before the court	Appellant contends appellate counsel was ineffective (argued at review)	Appellate IAC not raised in the PCR petition so is procedurally defaulted	Not considered — appellate IAC not before court
Whether challenges to the police investigation, warrantless phone search, and perjury are cognizable in PCR	These issues demonstrate constitutional violations meriting PCR	These claims were or could have been raised on direct appeal and are therefore precluded by Rule 32.2(a)	Dismissed as precluded — must have been raised on direct appeal
Whether an evidentiary hearing on IAC was required	Ramirez sought review based on general allegations of counsel deficiency	Court: unsubstantiated generalizations do not warrant an evidentiary hearing without factual support	No hearing required — trial court acted within discretion

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Nash, 143 Ariz. 392 (1985) (Arizona recognition of Strickland standard)
State v. Salazar, 146 Ariz. 540 (1985) (failure on either Strickland prong defeats IAC claim)
State v. Rosario, 195 Ariz. 264 (1999) (burden on petitioner to show provable reality, not speculation)
State v. Vickers, 180 Ariz. 521 (1994) (strategic decisions do not constitute IAC if they have a reasoned basis)
State v. Borbon, 146 Ariz. 392 (1985) (no evidentiary hearing on mere generalizations)
State v. Goswick, 142 Ariz. 582 (1984) (self-serving affidavits insufficient without corroboration)
State v. Wagstaff, 161 Ariz. 66 (1989) (procedural rules on raising claims)
State v. Bortz, 169 Ariz. 575 (1991) (procedural default on claims not raised in PCR)
State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390 (2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard for PCR rulings)