State v. Romero, 1 CA-CR 14-0859-PRPC

Romero pled guilty to possession of narcotics for sale and sale/transportation of narcotics and admitted factual basis and voluntariness at change-of-plea hearing.
She later filed a petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for multiple failures (no severance motion, no discovery copies, poor communication, failure to obtain better plea, charging for mitigation packet).
Romero also claimed the superior court imposed an illegal consecutive sentence, the State failed to disclose phone recordings, and asserted actual innocence.
The superior court dismissed her PCR petition; Romero sought review in the Court of Appeals, which granted review but denied relief.
The Court of Appeals found Romero waived non-jurisdictional claims by pleading guilty and that she did not present clear and convincing evidence of actual innocence or show counsel could have procured a better plea.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Romero)	Defendant's Argument (State / Court's response)	Held
Ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to file motion to sever, provide discovery, communicate, secure better plea, create mitigation without fees)	Counsel failed in multiple respects, prejudicing plea and sentencing	Plea waived non-jurisdictional defects and claims not directly related to plea; Romero offered no showing counsel could have obtained a better plea	Denied — claims waived or unsupported
Alleged illegal consecutive sentence	Sentence was illegal because it ran consecutively	A.R.S. § 13-711 presumes consecutive sentences unless court orders otherwise	Denied — sentence lawful under statute
Failure to disclose phone-recording evidence	State withheld recordings of phone conversations	Emails attached show State disclosed information to defense counsel	Denied — disclosure occurred to counsel
Actual innocence claim	Romero asserted she was actually innocent and sought PCR relief	Rule 32.1(h) requires clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable fact-finder would convict; Romero admitted involvement and offered no such evidence	Denied — did not meet Rule 32.1(h) burden
New arguments on review (e.g., need for two attorneys) / arguments raised first in reply	These issues show additional trial counsel failures	Arguments not raised in superior court are forfeited on review; cannot raise new claims in reply	Not considered — forfeited/not properly before court

State v. Moreno, 134 Ariz. 199, 655 P.2d 23 (App. 1982) (plea waives non-jurisdictional defects)
Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258 (1973) (guilty plea waives prior constitutional claims not affecting plea’s voluntariness)
State v. Quick, 177 Ariz. 314, 868 P.2d 327 (App. 1994) (ineffective assistance claims unrelated to plea are waived by guilty plea)
State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390, 166 P.3d 945 (App. 2007) (standard of review and Rule 32.1(h) actual innocence requirements)
State v. Ramirez, 126 Ariz. 464, 616 P.2d 924 (App. 1980) (appellate court will not address issues raised first on petition for review)
State v. Watson, 198 Ariz. 48, 6 P.3d 752 (App. 2000) (arguments first raised in reply are not considered)
State v. Smith, 184 Ariz. 456, 910 P.2d 1 (1996) (post-conviction review does not extend to unpreserved fundamental error)