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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

DENISE NECTALY ROMERO, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 14-0859 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2012-135851-008

The Honorable Peter C. Reinstein, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Karen Kemper

Counsel for Respondent

Denise Nectaly Romero, Goodyear

Petitioner
STATE v. ROMERO

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Patricia K. Norris delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Margaret H. Downie joined.

N O R R I S, Judge:

¶1 Denise Nectaly Romero petitions this court for review of the 

superior court’s dismissal of her petition for post-conviction relief. We 

grant review, but deny relief.

¶2 Romero pled guilty to possession of narcotic drugs for sale 

and sale or transportation of narcotic drugs. In her petition for review, 

Romero argues her counsel was ineffective because he failed to (1) file a 

motion to sever; (2) provide copies of discovery to her; (3) communicate 

with her; (4) convince the State to offer her a better plea deal; and (5) create 

a mitigation packet without charging Romero additional fees.

¶3 A plea agreement waives all non-jurisdictional defenses, 

errors, and defects which occurred prior to the plea. State v. Moreno, 134 

Ariz. 199, 200, 655 P.2d 23, 24 (App. 1982) (citation omitted). The waiver of 

non-jurisdictional defects includes alleged deprivations of constitutional 

rights, Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267, 93 S. Ct. 1602, 1608, 36 L. Ed. 

2d 235 (1973), and all claims of ineffective assistance of counsel not directly 

related to the entry of the plea, State v. Quick, 177 Ariz. 314, 316, 868 P.2d 

327, 329 (App. 1994). Here, Romero admitted her guilt at the change of plea 

hearing, admitted the factual basis for each count, and informed the court 

that she had not been threatened or otherwise coerced into entering the plea 

agreement. In seeking post-conviction relief, Romero offered nothing to 

suggest her attorney could have persuaded the State to make a plea offer 

better than the one she accepted.

¶4 Romero additionally argues, without citation to authority,

that the superior court imposed an illegal, consecutive sentence. Under 

Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 13-711 (2016),1 however, the 

“sentences imposed by the court shall run consecutively unless the court 

 

1This statute has not been amended since May 2012, when the 

State alleged Romero began her involvement in the underlying offenses. 

Thus, we cite to the current version of the statute.
STATE v. ROMERO

Decision of the Court

3

expressly directs otherwise.” Thus, the court did not impose an illegal 

sentence.

¶5 Romero next argues the State failed to disclose recordings of 

phone conversations. However, the emails Romero attached to her petition 

for review show the State disclosed information regarding the phone 

conversations to her attorney.

¶6 Romero also argues the superior court should have granted 

her post-conviction relief based on her actual innocence. We reject this 

argument. See State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390, 393, ¶ 4, 166 P.3d 945, 948 

(App. 2007) (appellate court reviews ruling on post-conviction motion for 

abuse of discretion) (citations omitted). Under Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.1(h), a 

defendant claiming actual innocence in a post-conviction petition must 

show “by clear and convincing evidence that . . . no reasonable fact-finder 

would have found defendant guilty of the underlying offense beyond a 

reasonable doubt.” Romero has offered no evidence to support that she was 

actually innocent. Indeed, although she downplays her role in the 

underlying offenses, she admitted her involvement in the offenses in her 

petition for post-conviction relief and her petition for review. Accordingly, 

Romero has not met her burden under Rule 32.1(h). See Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 

at 404, ¶ 46, 166 P.3d at 959.

¶7 Finally, Romero has raised several arguments in her petition 

for review that she did not raise in her petition for post-conviction relief in 

the superior court. For example, in her petition for review, she argues the 

seriousness of her case necessitated two attorneys. Because Romero failed 

to raise these arguments in the superior court, they are not properly before 

us. See State v. Ramirez, 126 Ariz. 464, 467, 616 P.2d 924, 927 (App. 1980) 

(appellate court does not address argument raised for the first time in a 

petition for review); see also Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii) (requiring a 

petition for review to contain “issues which were decided by the trial 

court”). We also will not consider any of the arguments she has raised for 

the first time in her reply brief. See State v. Watson, 198 Ariz. 48, 51, ¶ 4, 6 

P.3d 752, 755 (App. 2000) (citation omitted). Further, we do not review 

post-conviction petitions for fundamental error. State v. Smith, 184 Ariz. 456, 

459, 910 P.2d 1, 4 (1996).
STATE v. ROMERO

Decision of the Court

4

¶8 For the foregoing reasons, the superior court properly 

dismissed Romero’s petition for post-conviction relief. Thus, although we 

grant review, we deny relief.