State v. Reyes
1 CA-CR 16-0563-PRPC
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Sep 26, 2017Background
- David Reyes was convicted by a jury of kidnapping (class 2) and second-degree burglary (class 3); acquitted of aggravated assault. The jury found aggravators, including that he was on community supervision. After a priors trial proving six felonies, Reyes received concurrent presumptive terms (15.75 and 11.25 years). Convictions affirmed on direct appeal.
- Reyes filed a timely pro se petition for post-conviction relief (PCR), raising multiple claims but later narrowed them to ineffective assistance of his preliminary-hearing/plea counsel; he conceded other claims were not colorable.
- Reyes alleged counsel failed to advise him of the risks of trial and the evidence against him (citing State v. Donald), and that he would have accepted a plea if properly advised; he also claimed memory blackout of the incident.
- The superior court summarily denied the PCR petition and denied Reyes’s motion for reconsideration on the narrowed issue without requesting a State response. Reyes argued automatic relief was warranted because the State did not respond to the motion for reconsideration.
- The Court of Appeals granted review but denied relief: no response by the State was required under Rule 32.9(a); Reyes’s ineffective-assistance claim was not colorable because the record contradicted his assertions and he failed to show prejudice under Strickland.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure of State to respond to motion for reconsideration entitles Reyes to automatic relief | Reyes: State’s non-response to motion for reconsideration required relief | State: Court did not request a response; Rule 32.9(a) does not require one | Denied — Rule 32.9(a) permits no response unless court requests; non-response does not automatically entitle relief (Cawley) |
| Whether preliminary-hearing/plea counsel was ineffective for failing to advise risks/evidence (Donald claim) | Reyes: Counsel failed to advise of evidence/risks; would have accepted plea if properly advised | State: Record shows multiple Donald advisements and that offers/ranges were explained; Reyes rejected offers knowingly | Denied — claim not colorable; record contradicts Reyes’s self-serving assertions |
| Whether Reyes demonstrated prejudice under Strickland (that he would have accepted plea and received lesser sentence) | Reyes: Would have accepted plea and received ~9.25 years or less | State: Offers were ranges; any stipulated sentence was speculative; sentencing could have reached higher terms based on aggravators | Denied — Reyes failed to prove prejudice; showing what sentence would have resulted is speculative (McDaniel) |
| Whether an evidentiary hearing was required on the ineffective-assistance claim | Reyes: His affidavit and assertions suffice to warrant hearing | State: Record and transcripts refute claims; self-serving affidavit insufficient | Denied — no evidentiary hearing required where record contradicts allegations and claim is not colorable (Goswick; Toro) |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective-assistance standard)
- State v. Donald, 198 Ariz. 406 (App. 2000) (preliminary-hearing plea advisement standards)
- State v. Cawley, 133 Ariz. 27 (App. 1982) (failure to respond to petition does not entitle petitioner to automatic relief)
- State v. McDaniel, 136 Ariz. 188 (proof of counsel’s ineffectiveness must be demonstrable reality, not speculation)