Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 14-0832 PRPC
10-11-2016
STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. LEON ROBERTSON, Petitioner.
COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Arthur G. Hazelton, Jr. Counsel for Respondent Leon Robertson, Tucson Petitioner Pro Se
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2013-100989-001
The Honorable Robert L. Gottsfield, Judge Retired
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix
By Arthur G. Hazelton, Jr.
Counsel for Respondent Leon Robertson, Tucson
Petitioner Pro Se
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Donn Kessler authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Kenton D. Jones and Judge Randall M. Howe joined. KESSLER, Judge:
¶1 Petitioner Leon Robertson seeks review of the superior court's summary dismissal of his pro se petition for post-conviction relief of-right. Robertson pled guilty to misconduct involving weapons and possession or use of narcotic drugs. Robertson argues his trial counsel was ineffective when counsel failed to file a motion to suppress, conduct pre-trial investigation, and present an affidavit from Robertson's wife professing his innocence. Robertson also argues his post-conviction relief counsel was ineffective when she failed to raise these issues and when she "fabricated" evidence by explaining her view of the evidence in correspondence to Robertson.
Robertson's post-conviction relief counsel found no colorable claims for relief. --------
¶2 We deny relief. A plea agreement waives all non-jurisdictional defenses, errors, and defects which occurred prior to the plea. State v. Flores, 218 Ariz. 407, 409-10, ¶ 6 (App. 2008). This includes deprivations of constitutional rights, id., and all claims of ineffective assistance of counsel not directly related to the entry of the plea, State v. Quick, 177 Ariz. 314, 316 (App. 1993). Further, because Robertson waived these issues, post-conviction relief counsel had no issues to raise. Finally, interpreting the evidence in a manner with which Robertson did not agree was not "fabricating" evidence.
¶3 We do not address the other issues Robertson raises in his petition because he did not present those issues to the trial court. State v. Ramirez, 126 Ariz. 464, 467 (App. 1980) (clarifying this Court will not review issues raised for the first time in a motion for rehearing); State v. Wagstaff, 161 Ariz. 66, 71 (App. 1988) (same); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii).
¶4 We grant review and deny relief.