Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2019-0286-PR
02-04-2020
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. ABDULLAH MUJAHID, Petitioner.
COUNSEL Post Conviction Legal Clinic, Phoenix By Katherine Puzauskas and Robert Dormady and Emily Danies, Tucson Counsel for Petitioner
THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.19(e). Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Pima County
No. CR025289
The Honorable Scott McDonald, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL Post Conviction Legal Clinic, Phoenix
By Katherine Puzauskas and Robert Dormady and Emily Danies, Tucson
Counsel for Petitioner
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Brearcliffe authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Staring and Chief Judge Vásquez concurred. BREARCLIFFE, Judge:
¶1 Abdullah Mujahid seeks review of the trial court's order summarily dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief in which he argued Montgomery v. Louisiana, ___ U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) and Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), constitute a significant change in the law entitling him to relief from his consecutive sentences. We grant review but deny relief.
¶2 In March 1989, Mujahid pleaded guilty to first-degree murder, theft, and second-degree burglary for offenses committed in 1988, when Mujahid was seventeen years old. The trial court sentenced him to life with eligibility for parole after twenty-five years for the murder, to be followed by ten-year consecutive sentences for theft and burglary. He received parole from his life sentence in 2014 and will be eligible for release after serving two-thirds of his remaining prison terms.
¶3 In 2017, Mujahid filed a petition for post-conviction relief citing Montgomery and Miller and arguing that he is entitled to relief because his aggregate sentence exceeds his life expectancy. The trial court summarily dismissed the proceeding, correctly noting that we have rejected the argument that Montgomery and Miller, which prohibit life sentences for juvenile offenders without a meaningful opportunity for release, apply to non-life, consecutive sentences. See State v. Kasic, 247 Ariz. 562, ¶¶ 3-5 (App. 2019); State v. Helm, 245 Ariz. 560, ¶¶ 8-10 (App. 2018). On review, Mujahid asks that we revisit that issue. We decline to do so.
Mujahid argued his life expectancy is substantially reduced due to his incarceration, citing several research studies in support, and thus he is likely to die before he is eligible for release. For the purposes of this decision, we will accept that claim as true. Cf. State v. Watton, 164 Ariz. 323, 328 (1990) (court accepts as true defendant's factual assertions when evaluating whether post-conviction claim is colorable). --------
¶4 We grant review but deny relief.