 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Cervantez2/5/2004
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court
Appellant Harold Urrea Cervantez was convicted after a jury trial of one count of aggravated driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI), one count of aggravated driving with an alcohol concentration of.10 or more, and four counts of endangerment. He was sentenced to concurrent, two-year prison terms for each count of endangerment, to be followed by a consecutive, seven-year probationary term for the aggravated DUI counts, including a mandatory, four-month prison term.
In the sole issue raised on appeal, appellant argues his trial counsel was ineffective. In State v. Spreitz, 202 Ariz. 1, , 39 P.3d 525, (2002), our supreme court reviewed the "murky" and conflicting Arizona case law addressing whether ineffective assistance of counsel claims should be raised on appeal or in post-conviction relief proceedings under Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P., 17 A.R.S. The court announced a bright-line rule:
We endeavor today to clarify this issue for trial courts and practitioners. Accordingly, we reiterate that ineffective assistance of counsel claims are to be brought in Rule 32 proceedings. Any such claims improvidently raised in a direct appeal, henceforth, will not be addressed by appellate courts regardless of merit. There will be no preclusive effect under Rule 32 by the mere raising of such issues. The appellate court simply will not address them. This ensures criminal defendants a timely and orderly opportunity to litigate ineffectiveness claims and, we believe, promotes judicial economy by disallowing piecemeal litigation.
Spreitz, 202 Ariz. 1, , 39 P.3d 525, .
Spreitz was issued before appellant filed his notice of appeal and is unquestionably the law applicable to his case. Appellant contends his ineffective assistance of counsel claim is appropriately raised on appeal, but there are no exceptions provided for in Spreitz, which appellant does not cite. " e are bound by decisions of the Arizona Supreme Court and have no authority to overrule, modify, or disregard them." City of Phoenix v. Leroy's Liquors, Inc., 177 Ariz. 375, 378, 868 P.2d 958, 961 (App. 1993). Accordingly, we do not address appellant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim. There will be no preclusive effect under Rule 32 by virtue of his having raised the claim in this forum.
We affirm appellant's convictions and sentences.
M. JAN FLOREZ, Judge
CONCURRING:
J. WILLIAM BRAMMER, JR., Presiding Judge
JOSEPH W. HOWARD, Judge
|