Orozco v. Hon. Duncan/State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
DIVISION ONE FILED: 10/11/2011 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: DLL IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE JOEL ESCALANTE OROZCO, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ) THE HONORABLE SALLY DUNCAN, ) Judge of the SUPERIOR COURT OF ) THE STATE OF ARIZONA, in and for ) the County of MARICOPA, ) ) Respondent Judge, ) ) STATE OF ARIZONA ex rel. WILLIAM ) MONTGOMERY, Maricopa County ) Attorney, ) ) Real Party in Interest. ) __________________________________) No. 1 CA-SA 11-0191 DEPARTMENT B Maricopa County Superior Court No. CR2007-008288-001DT DECISION ORDER Pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes ( A.R.S. ) section 13-753(I), the court accepts jurisdiction over the petition for special action filed by Joel Escalante Orozco, but denies relief. The superior court conducted a 21-day evidentiary hearing over an extended period regarding petitioner s motion to dismiss motion The the was court capital based heard petitioner, teacher, and on murder petitioner s testimony petitioner s cell charges from mates. ex-wife, See filed alleged three against mental experts family A.R.S. him. retardation. who members, § The evaluated a former 13-753(G) (after receiving expert evidentiary reports, hearing to the superior determine if court the must hold has defendant an an intellectual disability ). We review the superior court s ruling for an abuse of discretion, deferring to factual findings that are supported by the record and not clearly erroneous. See State v. Grell, 212 Ariz. 516, 528, ¶ 58, 135 P.3d 696, 708 (2006) ( The trial judge has broad discretion in determining the weight and credibility given to mental health evidence. ) (citations omitted). Petitioner urges us to evaluate the evidence presented below and reach a conclusion different from the superior court. Appellate courts, however, do not reweigh the evidence to decide whether they would reach the same conclusion as the original trier of fact. See State v. Mincey, 141 Ariz. 425, 432, 687 P.2d 1180, 1187 (1984). The superior court s minute entry ruling is extremely detailed. It accurately states the record and applies the correct law, clearly addressing the relevant statutory factors. See A.R.S. § 13-753(K)(3) (describing an intellectual disability as a condition significantly based on sub-average existing concurrently adaptive behavior conditions a occurred (2) (3) mental general with where before the age deficit that involves intellectual significant onset 18); of (1) functioning impairment of the foregoing -753(K)(1) (defining adaptive behavior as the effectiveness or degree to which the 2 defendant meets the standards of personal independence and social responsibility expected of his age and cultural group. ); -753(K)(5) (defining significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning as a full scale IQ of 70 or lower and requiring the court to take into account the margin of error in testing). The evaluating experts disagreed about the existence of the statutory factors. The superior court explained rationale for relying on certain opinions over others. support in the record for the court s its There is determinations, notwithstanding petitioner s advocacy for a different weighing of the evidence. Based on the evidence presented, a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that petitioner failed to carry his burden of proving convincing a full scale evidence. determination disability, is of Evidence that but IQ of petitioner not 70 or lower record suffers intellectually also by clear and supports the from a disabled and learning does not suffer from significant impairment of adaptive behavior. One expert concluded that onset before the age of 18 was evidenced by petitioner s beyond second grade. failure to attend formal education A different expert opined that this was due to cultural and familial norms, where education was neither valued nor supported. Based on 3 the evidence presented, the superior court could reasonably conclude that petitioner failed to prove an onset of intellectual disability before age 18. Finally, the superior court thoroughly evaluated whether petitioner s testing utilized current community, nationally and culturally accepted procedures. See A.R.S. § 13-753(B), (E). The evidentiary hearing focused extensively on this issue, and the court spent considerable time questioning each expert about these issues, discussing the limitations of the testing in its ruling. Because the superior court s ruling is amply supported by the record and the applicable law, IT IS ORDERED the requested relief is denied. _/s/_________________________________ MARGARET H. DOWNIE, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: s/s/ PETER B. SWANN, Judge S/s/ DONN KESSLER, Judge 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
