State v. Valdez, 1 CA-CR 16-0027-PRPC

Petitioner Ysidro Juan Valdez pled guilty to one count of sexual assault (class 2) and two counts of attempted sexual assault (class 3); sentenced to an aggravated 14-year term on the sexual-assault count and lifetime probation (suspended sentences) on the attempted counts.
Valdez filed a timely Rule 32 post-conviction relief petition; appointed counsel found no colorable claims and Valdez proceeded pro se asserting: ineffective assistance (focused on DNA evidence and alleged inability to withdraw plea), disclosure/Brady violations, and that the sentence was illegally aggravated.
DNA testing produced a mixed profile from the condom’s non-sperm fraction; lab results indicated the victim could not be excluded as a contributor and Valdez’s DNA was found inside the condom.
Valdez argued the DNA was exculpatory and that counsel failed to investigate or honor a request to withdraw the plea; he also contended the State failed to disclose victim availability for sentencing and that the aggravated sentence violated Apprendi/Blakely.
The trial court summarily dismissed the petition; the Court of Appeals granted review but denied relief, concluding Valdez’s claims were not colorable and that he waived Apprendi/Blakely rights in his plea agreement.

Issue	Valdez (Plaintiff)	State (Defendant)	Held
Ineffective assistance re: DNA testing	Counsel failed to evaluate/disclose exculpatory DNA showing victim’s DNA absent from condom	Lab showed mixed profile; victim could not be excluded; counsel and prosecutor discussed DNA at plea	Dismissed — no colorable IAC; DNA results were not exculpatory; record contradicts claim
Ability to withdraw plea / involuntary plea	Counsel ignored request to withdraw; plea was involuntary due to counsel’s promises	No record of a timely request to withdraw; trial court complied with Boykin colloquy; Valdez denied promises/threats	Dismissed — no evidence of request or coercion; Boykin colloquy forecloses allegation
Brady/disclosure re: victim attendance at sentencing	State withheld information about victim’s attendance, amounting to Brady violation	No suppression of exculpatory evidence; State need not disclose victim’s attendance for sentencing after guilty plea	Dismissed — Brady inapplicable; no favorable, suppressed evidence shown
Legality of aggravated sentence / Apprendi challenge	Aggravated sentence violated right to jury factfinding (Apprendi/Blakely)	Plea agreement expressly allowed judicial factfinding and sentencing within 5.25–14 years; Valdez waived Apprendi/Blakely rights	Dismissed — waiver in plea agreement and defendant’s acknowledgments render sentence lawful

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective-assistance claims requires deficient performance and prejudice)
Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969) (court must ensure guilty plea is voluntary and informed)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose materially favorable evidence)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be found by jury or admitted)
Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) (Apprendi principle applied to sentencing guidelines/judicial factfinding)
State v. Bennett, 213 Ariz. 562 (2006) (standard of review for Rule 32 denials)
State v. Amaral, 239 Ariz. 217 (2016) (definition of a colorable claim in post-conviction relief)
State v. Pandeli, 242 Ariz. 175 (2017) (futility of motion does not constitute ineffective assistance)
State v. Hamilton, 142 Ariz. 91 (1984) (defendant’s sworn statements at plea foreclose later contrary claims)
State v. Ramirez, 126 Ariz. 464 (1980) (limitations on amending post-conviction petitions after dismissal)