State v. Sullivan, 1 CA-CR 15-0817-PRPC

In 2014, Ive Sullivan pled guilty to one count of misconduct involving weapons (Class 4 felony) after other drug counts were dismissed following a suppression hearing and settlement discussions.
A priors trial established Sullivan had two historical felony priors; the superior court sentenced him to the 10-year presumptive term.
Sullivan filed a timely Rule 32 post-conviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel in four respects: (1) failure to timely challenge grand jury proceedings; (2) failure to appeal denial of a suppression motion; (3) giving erroneous/incomplete advice causing rejection of a better plea; and (4) misleading Sullivan into an involuntary/unfavorable plea.
The superior court dismissed the petition under Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.6(c); Sullivan sought review in the Court of Appeals.
The record shows the court conducted a settlement conference, the State agreed to recommend 10 years if Sullivan pled guilty, the court advised Sullivan of potential exposure at trial (up to 15 years), and Sullivan acknowledged understanding of priors and supervised-release allegations before pleading.
The appellate court found Sullivan failed to prove counsel’s performance was deficient or that any errors prejudiced the outcome, and therefore denied relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Sullivan)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
1. Failure to timely challenge grand jury	Counsel should have challenged grand jury proceedings earlier	No prejudice shown; record does not support this claim	Denied — no ineffective assistance proven
2. Failure to appeal denial of suppression motion	Counsel should have appealed suppression denial; that failure forced plea	No appeal was necessary once Sullivan chose to plead; no prejudice	Denied — no ineffective assistance proven
3. Erroneous/incomplete advice re: plea offers	Counsel gave bad advice causing Sullivan to reject a better plea	Court and record show informed settlement discussion and plea choice	Denied — plea was knowing and voluntary; no prejudice
4. Misleading into an involuntary/unfavorable plea	Counsel misled Sullivan about plea terms and consequences	Court complied with Boykin questioning; Sullivan knowingly admitted priors	Denied — plea voluntary, intelligent, and properly canvassed

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969) (court must ensure guilty plea is knowing, voluntary, and intelligent)
State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573 (App. 2012) (review standard for dismissal of Rule 32 petitions)
State v. Nash, 143 Ariz. 392 (1985) (application of Strickland in Arizona)
State v. Hamilton, 142 Ariz. 91 (1984) (plea voluntariness when Boykin requirements met)
State v. Donald, 198 Ariz. 406 (App. 2000) (issues relating to plea advisements and prior plea offers)
State v. James, 239 Ariz. 367 (App. 2012) (oral statements at sentencing control over minute entry)