Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2017-0415-PR
04-06-2018
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. JOSE VALADEZ-SANDOVAL, Petitioner.
COUNSEL William G. Montgomery, Maricopa County Attorney By Adena J. Astrowsky, Deputy County Attorney, Phoenix Counsel for Respondent Jose Valadez-Sandoval, Buckeye In Propria Persona
THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.19(e). Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2012141355005DT
The Honorable Sherry K. Stephens, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL William G. Montgomery, Maricopa County Attorney
By Adena J. Astrowsky, Deputy County Attorney, Phoenix
Counsel for Respondent Jose Valadez-Sandoval, Buckeye
In Propria Persona
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Vásquez authored the decision of the Court, in which Judge Espinosa and Judge Eppich concurred. VÁSQUEZ, Presiding Judge:
¶1 Jose Valadez-Sandoval seeks review of the trial court's order summarily denying his of-right petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. We will not disturb that order unless the court abused its discretion. See State v. Roseberry, 237 Ariz. 507, ¶ 7 (2015). Valadez-Sandoval has not shown such abuse here.
¶2 Valadez-Sandoval pled guilty to possession of narcotic drugs for sale and three counts of conspiracy to possess dangerous drugs for sale. In accordance with the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced him to concurrent, seven-year prison terms for the possession count and two of the conspiracy counts, to be followed by a term of five years and eleven months on the remaining conspiracy count. At sentencing, Valadez-Sandoval raised several questions about his plea and sentence, including whether he was entitled to presentence incarceration credit for all his sentences. The court informed him he would receive credit on the three concurrent sentences, but not the consecutive sentence. Valadez-Sandoval declined to seek to withdraw from his plea, and the court awarded him 1,177 days of presentence incarceration credit on the concurrent sentences.
¶3 Valadez-Sandoval sought post-conviction relief, and appointed counsel filed a notice stating he had reviewed the record but found no claims to raise in a post-conviction proceeding. Valadez-Sandoval then filed a pro se petition asserting he was entitled to another 1,177 days of presentence incarceration credit on his consecutive term of imprisonment for conspiracy, apparently because the plea agreement did not specify otherwise. He also claimed that, had he known he would not receive credit against his sentence for that count, he would not have pled guilty. The trial court summarily denied relief, and this petition for review followed.
¶4 On review, Valadez-Sandoval repeats his claim that he is entitled to duplicative presentence incarceration credit for his consecutive term of imprisonment. But, as the trial court correctly noted, presentence incarceration credit does not apply to consecutive prison terms. State v. Chavez, 172 Ariz. 102, 103 (App. 1992). Further, Valadez-Sandoval has cited no authority, and we find none, suggesting that a trial court is required to advise a defendant during a plea colloquy that, should the court impose consecutive prison terms, he is not entitled to presentence incarceration credit for those terms. See generally Ariz. R. Crim. P. 17.2(a) (listing conditions trial court must ensure defendant understands before accepting plea). Nor does he cite authority suggesting such an advisement must appear in the plea agreement.
¶5 Finally, as the trial court pointed out, Valadez-Sandoval opted not to seek withdrawal from the plea after he was informed he would not receive the credit on his consecutive term. Thus, even if the court were required to inform him during the plea colloquy about presentence incarceration credit, Valadez-Sandoval has not made a colorable claim that it was material to his decision to plead guilty. See State v. Crowder, 155 Ariz. 477, 481 (1987) ("[A] defendant should not be allowed to vacate a plea bargain unless the information he lacked was actually relevant to the decisionmaking process.").
Valadez-Sandoval asserts, for the first time on review, that he did not seek to withdraw because "he did not have time to reflect on the situation in the light of day and felt pressured by the court to plea[d] guilty or risk trial." We do not address claims not first raised in the trial court. See State v. Vera, 235 Ariz. 571, ¶ 8 (App. 2014). --------
¶6 We grant review but deny relief.