State v. Sovero
1 CA-CR 15-0142-PRPC
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Apr 27, 2017Background
- In Nov. 2010 David Solomon Sovero pled guilty to two counts of first-degree murder and one count of aggravated assault; the State dismissed other counts and withdrew death-penalty notices.
- Sovero stipulated to natural life sentences for the murders and a term of years for the assault; in Jan. 2011 the court imposed consecutive natural-life sentences plus a consecutive 21-year term.
- In Sept. 2014 Sovero filed a Rule 32 post-conviction relief petition arguing (1) his pleas were not knowing/voluntary because he was taking psychotropic medication, and (2) ineffective assistance of counsel on multiple grounds including inadequate investigation and failure to pursue evidentiary hearings.
- He also argued the State failed to disclose a supplemental officer report that he claimed undercut the aggravated-assault charge.
- The superior court denied relief; the court of appeals granted review but denied relief, finding Sovero failed to present colorable claims or otherwise meet required standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plea not knowing/voluntary due to psychotropic medication | Sovero: medication impaired his capacity so plea was unknowing | State: plea colloquy showed competence; no medical evidence showing impairment; records ended before plea | Denied — no colorable claim; plea colloquy and lack of medical proof show plea was knowing and voluntary |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to raise medication issue at plea | Sovero: counsel should have raised medication effects | State: underlying plea claim not colorable, so counsel’s failure cannot support ineffective assistance | Denied — no colorable underlying claim, so no ineffective assistance shown |
| Suppressed supplemental officer report (Brady/new evidence) | Sovero: report shows witnesses didn’t see him point a gun, undermining assault charge | State: absence of seeing a gun does not prove innocence; report not claimed as newly discovered; plea waives pre-plea nonjurisdictional defenses | Denied — plea waiver bars the challenge and report does not establish new evidence |
| Ineffective assistance — investigation, witness interviews, Rule 609 hearing, failure to obtain integrity files, grand jury challenge | Sovero: counsel spent insufficient time, failed to investigate, failed to seek Rule 609 hearing, and failed to pursue other pretrial discovery/remedies | State: Sovero provided no affidavits or evidence of what missing witnesses would have said; no showing of prejudice; many issues were not raised below | Denied — claims not colorable (no supporting affidavits, no prejudice); unraised issues not addressed on review |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573 (App. 2012) (standard for appellate review of Rule 32 rulings)
- State v. Moreno, 134 Ariz. 199 (App. 1982) (plea waiver bars nonjurisdictional pre-plea defenses)
- State v. Borbon, 146 Ariz. 392 (1985) (need affidavits showing what uncalled witnesses would have testified to for investigation-based claims)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
- State v. Bortz, 169 Ariz. 575 (App. 1991) (issues not raised in the trial court generally cannot be raised on review)
- State v. Wagstaff, 161 Ariz. 66 (App. 1988) (same)
- State v. Ramirez, 126 Ariz. 464 (App. 1980) (same)