State v. Laureano

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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. RUBI LAUREANO, Petitioner. No. 1 CA-CR 16-0663 PRPC FILED 1-2-2018 Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2015-001251-001 DT The Honorable Dean M. Fink, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Jeffrey R. Duvendack Counsel for Respondent Law Offices of Matthew H. Green, Tucson By Mary M. Kincaid Counsel for Petitioner STATE v. LAUREANO Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Diane M. Johnsen and Judge Maria Elena Cruz joined. W I N T H R O P, Presiding Judge: ¶1 Rubi Laureano petitions this court for review of the dismissal of her of-right petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure (“Rule”) 32. We have considered the petition for review and, for the reasons stated, grant review but deny relief. ¶2 Although she was aware her husband had sexually abused and impregnated their thirteen-year-old daughter, Laureano did not report the abuse to police. After the victim’s school reported the abuse, the State charged Laureano with one count each of child abuse, a class 4 felony, and failure to report nonaccidental injuries and physical neglect of minors, a class 6 felony. ¶3 Laureano, a Mexican national who was unlawfully present in the United States, subsequently pled guilty to an amended count of child abuse, a class 6 undesignated felony. At sentencing, defense counsel requested that the court designate the offense a misdemeanor. The court denied the request, imposed a two-year term of probation, and ordered that the offense remain undesignated until Laureano completed probation. ¶4 Laureano timely sought post-conviction relief. In her first amended Rule 32 petition, Laureano raised a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel (“IAC”) based on counsel’s purported failure to “effectively engage in plea negotiations.” Specifically, Laureano argued counsel’s performance was deficient for not attempting to negotiate an agreement to plead guilty only to compounding, a conviction for which, according to Laureano, would not trigger immigration proceedings to remove her from the United States.1 See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2405(A)(2) (2010) (providing that 1 Because the record reflects Laureano argued in superior court that counsel was ineffective for failing to negotiate a specific plea agreement, we reject her assertion in her petition for review that she did not seek a “specific plea.” 2 STATE v. LAUREANO Decision of the Court a person commits compounding by knowingly accepting, or agreeing to accept, any pecuniary benefit for refraining from reporting to law enforcement authorities the commission of any offense). The superior court summarily dismissed the petition, reasoning in part that Laureano was properly advised regarding the adverse effect a guilty plea could have on her immigration status, and Laureano failed to establish the ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals