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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

JUAN IRINEO RAMIREZ, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 15-0428 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

Nos. CR2013-002640-001; CR2013-417560-001

The Honorable William L. Brotherton, Jr., Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Diane Meloche

Counsel for Respondent

Juan Irineo Ramirez, Phoenix

Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Randall M. Howe delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop and Judge Jon W. Thompson joined.
STATE v. RAMIREZ

Decision of the Court

2

H O W E, Judge:

¶1 Juan Irineo Ramirez petitions this Court for review from the 

summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. We review the 

summary dismissal of a post-conviction relief proceeding for abuse of 

discretion. State v. Bennett, 213 Ariz. 562, 566 ¶ 17, 146 P.3d 63, 67 (2006). We 

have considered the petition for review and, for the reasons stated, grant 

review but deny relief.

¶2 In CR2013-002640, Ramirez pled guilty to criminal 

impersonation, a class 6 felony, and trafficking in the identity of another, a 

class 2 felony. Simultaneously, in CR2013-417560, Ramirez pled guilty to 

possession or use of a dangerous drug, a class 4 felony. The trial court 

sentenced him pursuant to the plea agreements to an aggravated two-year 

prison term on the criminal impersonation conviction with 201 days’

presentence incarceration credit. The trial court suspended the imposition 

of sentence on the trafficking in the identity of another and the possession 

or use of a dangerous drug convictions and placed him on concurrent 

probation terms of 18 months. As a condition of his probation in 

CR2013-002640, Ramirez had to serve a six-month jail term following his 

two-year prison term. Additionally, the concurrent probation term in 

CR2013-417560 included Drug Court conditions.

¶3 Ramirez filed a timely notice of post-conviction relief. After 

appointed counsel notified the court that he was unable to discern any 

colorable claims for relief, Ramirez filed a pro se petition for post-conviction 

relief alleging claims of illegal search and seizure, ineffective assistance of 

counsel, and error in calculation of credit for presentence incarceration. 

Finding no material issues of fact or law that would entitle Ramirez to relief, 

the trial court denied the petition.

¶4 In his petition for review, Ramirez argues that the trial court 

erred by denying his petition because the police violated his rights by 

conducting an illegal search and seizure and that his counsel was ineffective 

in not moving to suppress the fruits of the illegal search and seizure. But 

the entry of a guilty plea waives all non-jurisdictional defects, including 

claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, other than claims of 

ineffectiveness relating to the validity of the plea. State v. Quick, 177 Ariz. 

314, 316, 868 P.2d 327, 329 (App. 1993). Ramirez’s claims based on the search 

and seizure by the police are not directly related to the entry of his pleas 

and therefore have been waived. Id.
STATE v. RAMIREZ

Decision of the Court

3

¶5 Ramirez also reurges his claim that he is entitled to additional 

credit for presentence incarceration. A defendant is entitled to credit for all 

time spent in custody pursuant to an offense until the defendant is 

sentenced. A.R.S. § 13–712(B). 

¶6 Ramirez was indicted on June 12, 2013, with respect to the 

charges in CR2013-002640. The record reflects that he was arrested and 

booked on these charges on September 13, 2013, and held in jail until he was 

sentenced on April 3, 2014, for a total of 201 days in custody. The record 

further reflects that the time he spent in custody between April 19, 2013 and 

June 7, 2013, on which Ramirez bases his claim for additional credit for 

presentence incarceration, related to the possession conviction, not the 

criminal impersonation conviction he received a prison sentence for.

Because Ramirez was credited with the 201 days he spent in custody for the 

criminal impersonation conviction, the trial court did not err by finding that 

Ramirez failed to state a colorable claim for additional credit for 

presentence incarceration.

¶7 Accordingly, we grant review, but deny relief.