State v. Torrefranca
1 CA-CR 16-0435-PRPC
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Oct 5, 2017Background
- Torrefranca was convicted by jury of one count of sexual conduct with a minor (Class 2 felony, dangerous) and two counts of sexual abuse (Class 3 felonies); sentenced to a presumptive 20-year prison term for the Class 2 count and lifetime probation for the two Class 3 counts.
- This is Torrefranca’s fourth untimely and successive Rule 32 post-conviction relief (PCR) petition; prior appeals/PCRs were denied or not reviewed by this court.
- In the current petition he claimed newly discovered records (allegedly obtained in 2015) that he argued: (1) voided the indictment; (2) triggered double jeopardy/successive prosecution defenses; and (3) rendered his sentence illegal under A.R.S. § 13-604.01 and constitutional law (Apprendi/Blakely/Eighth Amendment).
- The superior court summarily dismissed the petition; Torrefranca sought review in this court which granted review but ultimately denied relief.
- The court found his illegal-sentence claims precluded as untimely and previously litigated; the 20-year presumptive sentence remained lawful and the statutory provision he cited had been renumbered (not repealed) and still provided a 20-year presumptive term.
- The court also rejected the newly discovered-evidence/double-jeopardy jurisdiction claims: the records were not newly discovered or material, jeopardy had never attached earlier, and prior rulings addressed voluntariness of statements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Torrefranca) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of sentence under § 13-604.01 and Apprendi/Blakely/Eighth Amendment | Sentence is illegal because statutory scheme changed or sentencing violated Apprendi/Blakely and Eighth Amendment | Sentence was presumptive 20 years; claim is untimely/precluded and Blakely/Apprendi inapplicable because sentence did not exceed verdict-based range | Court: Claim precluded as untimely; sentence lawful and Blakely/Apprendi not implicated |
| Effect of 2009 statutory changes (repeal/renumbering) on sentence | Repeal/constitutional invalidation of § 13-604.01 should invalidate sentence or reduce punishment | Offenses are punished under law at time committed; statute was renumbered to § 13-705, still providing 20-year presumptive term | Court: Changes do not apply; defendant gets law in effect when offense committed; no relief |
| Double jeopardy / successive prosecution / jurisdictional defect based on earlier records | Arrest/search records and prior “case” mean prior prosecution or charging that bars current prosecution | No complaint/prosecution occurred earlier; jeopardy never attached; records were known and not adjudicative | Court: No evidence jeopardy attached; claim precluded and lacks merit |
| Newly discovered CPS and other records supporting PCR | Documents discovered in 2015 show victim’s reports were unreliable or otherwise undermine verdict | Records were known or obtainable earlier; exhibit actually shows victim’s complaint was substantiated; not material to change verdict | Court: Not newly discovered in legal sense, not likely to alter outcome, untimely, and precluded |
Key Cases Cited
- Decenzo v. State, 199 Ariz. 355 (App. 2001) (standard of review for PCR dismissal)
- Miranda-Cabrera v. State, 209 Ariz. 220 (App. 2004) (presumptive sentence not violating Sixth Amendment where judge did not exceed verdict-based range)
- Stine v. State, 184 Ariz. 1 (App. 1995) (changes in penalty do not generally benefit those convicted before change)
- Davis v. State, 206 Ariz. 377 (App. 2003) (proportionality review on appeal)
- Stout v. State, 5 Ariz. App. 271 (App. 1967) (jeopardy attaches when jury empaneled and sworn)
- Bilke v. State, 162 Ariz. 52 (App. 1989) (requirements for colorable newly discovered evidence claim)
- Munninger v. State, 209 Ariz. 473 (App. 2005) (sentencing and "double-counting" argument addressed)
- Martinez v. State, 210 Ariz. 578 (App. 2005) (court may rely on aggravating factors implicitly found by the jury)