State v. Valenzuela ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                      NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.
    UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.
    IN THE
    ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
    DIVISION ONE
    STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,
    v.
    MELINDA GABRIELLA VALENZUELA, Petitioner.
    No. 1 CA-CR 16-0581 PRPC
    FILED 11-16-2017
    Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
    Nos. CR2012-159201-001 and CR2013-001579-001
    (Consolidated)
    The Honorable Rosa Mroz, Judge
    REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
    COUNSEL
    Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
    By Diane Meloche
    Counsel for Respondent
    Melinda Gabriella Valenzuela, Buckeye
    Petitioner
    STATE v. VALENZUELA
    Decision of the Court
    MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Presiding Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the decision of the Court, in
    which Judge Jon W. Thompson and Judge Paul J. McMurdie joined.
    C A T T A N I, Judge:
    ¶1           Melinda Gabriella Valenzuela petitions this court for review
    from the dismissal of her petition for post-conviction relief. For reasons that
    follow, we grant review but deny relief.
    ¶2           Valenzuela pleaded guilty to theft of means of transportation
    in each of two criminal cases resolved by plea agreement, pleading guilty
    to one count of theft of means of transportation in each case. The superior
    court accepted the guilty pleas, and consistent with the plea agreements,
    sentenced Valenzuela to 9 years’ imprisonment followed by a 5-year term
    of supervised probation.
    ¶3             Valenzuela timely initiated post-conviction relief proceedings
    in both cases. Appointed counsel found no viable claims for relief, and
    Valenzuela then filed pro se petitions raising numerous claims including:
    ineffective assistance of advisory counsel, unlawfully induced plea based
    on threats and promises from the court and the prosecutor, other
    constitutional violations (alleged Miranda violation, existence of
    exculpatory evidence, etc.), newly discovered mental health evidence, and
    miscalculation of presentence incarceration credit. After the State
    responded, the superior court summarily dismissed the petitions. This
    petition for review followed.
    ¶4           Valenzuela now argues that (1) the superior court failed to
    properly address her mental health issues and she was not provided with
    records and reports, (2) her guilty pleas were involuntary based on threats
    and coercion from her advisory counsel and the prosecutor, (3) the court
    improperly refused to address alleged Miranda violations, (4) her advisory
    counsel provided ineffective assistance, (5) other evidence (police reports,
    unspecified documents, unspecified statements from a co-defendant, and
    unspecified DNA evidence) prove her innocence, (6) several of
    Valenzuela’s friends were on the grand jury and her mother was a sitting
    judge on the superior court, and (7) she was not awarded full credit for
    “back time.” We review the superior court’s assessment and summary
    2
    STATE v. VALENZUELA
    Decision of the Court
    dismissal of these claims for an abuse of discretion. State v. Gutierrez, 
    229 Ariz. 573
    , 577, ¶ 19 (2012).
    ¶5            Regarding Valenzuela’s mental health claims, the record
    shows that she was evaluated by several mental health professionals before
    accepting the plea agreements. Although she suffers from mental health
    issues, four of the five doctors who evaluated Valenzuela concluded she
    was competent, as did the superior court based on the experts’ reports.
    Valenzuela has not presented any evidence suggesting the superior court’s
    determination of competence was an abuse of discretion, nor does the
    record of the change of plea proceeding reflect anything that would call
    Valenzuela’s competency into question.
    ¶6            Valenzuela’s claim of an involuntary plea also fails. Although
    she now claims her advisory counsel and the prosecutor threatened her to
    secure a guilty plea, Valenzuela advised the court at the change of plea
    hearing that the pleas were voluntary and that no one had threatened or
    forced her to plead guilty. Absent compelling evidence undermining
    Valenzuela’s acknowledgement of voluntariness in open court, her
    statements to the superior court at the change of plea are binding. State v.
    Hamilton, 
    142 Ariz. 91
    , 93 (1984).
    ¶7             Valenzuela’s remaining claims are either unsupported by the
    record or are waived. By pleading guilty, Valenzuela waived all non-
    jurisdictional defects—including constitutional claims—other than claims
    directly related to entry of the guilty pleas. See Tollett v. Henderson, 
    411 U.S. 258
    (1973); State v. Quick, 
    177 Ariz. 314
    (App. 1993); State v. Moreno, 
    134 Ariz. 199
    , 200 (App. 1982). Her assertions related to alleged Miranda violations,
    sufficiency of the evidence, alleged procedural irregularities, and non-plea-
    related ineffective assistance of counsel (assuming arguendo ineffective
    assistance of advisory counsel can form a basis for relief) are thus waived.
    Moreover, Valenzuela failed to present any allegedly exculpatory evidence
    to support an actual innocence claim or any support for her assertion that
    family and friends were involved in the judicial process, and the record
    does not support these claims. Nor has she provided any information
    supporting her claim that the superior court failed to award adequate credit
    for presentence incarceration.
    3
    STATE v. VALENZUELA
    Decision of the Court
    ¶8   Accordingly, we grant review but deny relief.
    AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
    FILED: AA
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 1 CA-CR 16-0581-PRPC

Filed Date: 11/16/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/16/2017