State v. Navarro

── State v. Navarro ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: May 04, 2026 Category: General 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. AGUSTIN NAVARRO, Petitioner. No. 1 CA-CR 25-0407 PRPC FILED 05-04-2026 Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2018-122824-001 The Honorable Patricia A. Starr, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Faith C. Klepper Counsel for Respondent Rosenstein Law Group, Scottsdale By Angela Poliquin, Craig Joseph Rosenstein Counsel for Petitioner  STATE v. NAVARRO Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Jennifer M. Perkins delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Michael S. Catlett and Judge Angela K. Paton joined. P E R K I N S, Judge: ¶1 Petitioner Agustin Navarro seeks review of the superior court’s order summarily dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief (“PCR”), filed under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure (“Rule”) 32. We have considered his petition for review and, for the reasons stated, grant review and deny relief. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 Following a jury trial, Navarro was convicted of two counts of sexual assault (counts 3 and 4) and one count each of sexual abuse (count 6), escape in the second degree (count 7), kidnapping (count 9), and burglary in the third degree (count 10). The superior court imposed consecutive prison terms totaling 37 years. This Court affirmed Navarro’s convictions and sentences on appeal. State v. Navarro, 1 CA-CR 22-0084, 2023 WL 5539109 (Ariz. App. Aug. 29, 2023) (mem. decision). ¶3 In February 2024, Navarro filed a notice requesting PCR. In September 2024, before filing his PCR petition, Navarro asked the superior court to order additional testing of Navarro’s and the victim’s clothes and re-testing of previously collected DNA swabs. Navarro argued because his convictions counts 4 and 6 rested on mixed and partial DNA evidence, additional testing could show a reasonable probability of a more favorable verdict. The superior court denied his requests, finding that overwhelming non-DNA evidence, including Navarro’s confession, store security video, the victim’s testimony, and cell phone evidence, supported his convictions on counts 4 and 6. ¶4 In April 2025, Navarro filed a PCR petition, raising claims of (1) ineffective assistance of counsel (“IAC”) against his trial counsel for failing to call a DNA expert at trial or to obtain independent DNA testing to challenge counts 4 and 6, and (2) actual innocence as to count 4. Navarro renewed his request for additional DNA testing and asked the court to appoint a DNA expert. The court dismissed Navarro’s petition, finding that 2  STATE v. NAVARRO Decision of the Court he failed to overcome the presumption that counsel’s decision was strategic, and there was no reasonable probability of a different outcome absent counsel’s alleged errors because there was overwhelming evidence against Navarro. The court also rejected Navarro’s actual innocence claim. The court did not address Navarro’s requests for DNA testing or appointment of a DNA expert. ¶5 Navarro petitioned for review of the superior court’s ruling. We grant review under Article 6, Section 9 of the Arizona Constitution, Arizona Revised Statutes S