State v. Rodriguez
227 Ariz. 58
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Rodriguez sought post-conviction relief under Rule 32, Ariz. R Crim. P., after a May 13, 2010 denial.
- He was convicted by jury of aggravated DUI and aggravated driving with BAC ≥ .08, offenses from December 21, 2005.
- The State argued the 1999 endangerment conviction was within five years of the 2005 offenses, excluding time previously incarcerated for the 2003 DUI.
- The trial court sentenced Rodriguez to enhanced, concurrent, presumptive terms of ten years on each conviction.
- On appeal, Rodriguez claimed his 1999 conviction was too remote to be a historical prior felony under §13-604(W)(2)(c) because of timing.
- Rodriguez later argued ineffective assistance of counsel for not challenging the pre-sentencing incarceration time.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance for not challenging remoteness | Rodriguez (Rodriguez) asserts counsel should have argued 1999 conviction was too remote. | State contends the issue is irrelevant to prejudice proven by Strickland. | No prejudicial deficient performance; no relief. |
| Whether presentence incarceration is excluded time | Rodriguez contends presentence time should not be excluded under §13-604(W)(2)(c). | State argues all time incarcerated, including presentence, is excluded. | Presentence incarceration included; time excluded. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Derello, 199 Ariz. 435, 18 P.3d 1234 (App. 2001) (time incarcerated for other felonies may be excluded)
- State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390, 166 P.3d 945 (App. 2007) (standards for post-conviction relief abuse-of-discretion review)
- State v. Nash, 143 Ariz. 392, 694 P.2d 222 (1985) (Strickland prejudice standard in ineffective assistance)
- State v. Song, 176 Ariz. 215, 860 P.2d 482 (1993) (preclusion of claims on appeal established)
- State v. Smith, 217 Ariz. 308, 173 P.3d 472 (App. 2007) (fundamental error review and related preclusion rules)
- State v. Streck, 214 Ariz. 280, 151 P.3d 1261 (App. 2007) (statutory interpretation in criminal context)
- Trustmark Ins. Co. v. Bank One, Ariz., NA, 202 Ariz. 535, 48 P.3d 485 (App. 2002) (statutory interpretation and ordinary meaning of terms)
- State v. Ross, 214 Ariz. 280, 151 P.3d 1261 (App. 2007) (consistency with statutory scheme)