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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

REYNALDO GRANADO, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 20-0299 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2017-005574-001

The Honorable Dewain D. Fox, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Shelby Nicole Fuller

Counsel for Respondent

Reynaldo Granado, Florence

Petitioner

FILED 12-3-2020
STATE v. GRANADO

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge Cynthia J. Bailey joined.

C A T T A N I, Judge:

¶1 Reynaldo Granado petitions for review from the superior 

court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. For reasons that

follow, we grant review but deny relief.

¶2 In 2018, Granado pleaded guilty to sexual exploitation of a 

minor, a class 2 felony, and attempted sexual exploitation of a minor, a class 

3 felony, both dangerous crimes against children. Consistent with the plea 

agreement, the superior court sentenced Granado to a less-thanpresumptive term of 14 years’ imprisonment, followed by lifetime 

probation.

¶3 Representing himself, Granado timely filed a notice of postconviction relief. He argued that (1) the search warrant underlying the 

evidence against him was defective (which, he asserted, undermined other 

aspects of the case that relied on such evidence, including the indictment, 

the superior court’s authority, and the sentence imposed) and (2) because a 

plea agreement is a contract, and thus civil in nature, his criminal defense 

attorney was not qualified to provide advice related to the plea, resulting 

in ineffective assistance of counsel. The superior court summarily 

dismissed the petition.

¶4 Granado petitioned for review, asserting grounds for relief 

based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We review the superior court’s

ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief for an abuse of discretion.

State v. Bennett, 213 Ariz. 562, 566, ¶ 17 (2006). To state a colorable claim of 

ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that counsel’s 

performance fell below objectively reasonable standards and that the 

deficient performance prejudiced the defendant. Strickland v. Washington, 

466 U.S. 668, 687–88 (1984). To show deficient performance relating to plea 

negotiations, the defendant must provide specific factual allegations, not 

just conclusory assertions, to show that counsel “(1) gave erroneous advice 

or (2) failed to give information necessary to allow the petitioner to make 
STATE v. GRANADO

Decision of the Court

3

an informed decision whether to accept the plea.” State v. Donald, 198 Ariz. 

406, 413, ¶¶ 16–17 (App. 2000).

¶5 Here, Granado failed to state a colorable claim of ineffective 

assistance of counsel. Although he argues that he should have been advised 

by an attorney who practices civil law, he failed to cite any authority—and 

we are aware of none—for the proposition that criminal defense attorneys 

are not authorized or not qualified to advise clients with regard to plea 

agreements. Nor did Granado provide any factual allegations relating to 

counsel’s advice or any allegation of resulting prejudice. And to the extent

Granado argues that counsel’s area of practice rendered his plea 

involuntary, the superior court questioned Granado in accordance with 

Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969), and his responses to those questions 

support the finding that he entered into the plea knowingly and 

voluntarily. State v. Hamilton, 142 Ariz. 91, 93 (1984).

¶6 Granado also asserts that his counsel was ineffective for 

failing to challenge the search warrant, causing fundamental error. But by 

pleading guilty, Granado waived any challenge to the validity of the search 

warrant or to counsel’s decision not to contest the warrant’s validity. See 

State v. Banda, 232 Ariz. 582, 585, ¶ 12 (App. 2013); see also Tollett v. 

Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973); State v. Smith, 184 Ariz. 456, 459 (1996).

¶7 Accordingly, we grant review but deny relief.