Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 17-0509 PRPC
04-17-2018
STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. LESHON KYLE JONES, Petitioner.
COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Lisa Marie Martin Counsel for Respondent Leshon Kyle Jones, Florence Petitioner
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. CR2012-134496-002
The Honorable M. Scott McCoy, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL
Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix
By Lisa Marie Martin
Counsel for Respondent
Leshon Kyle Jones, Florence
Petitioner
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Jennifer M. Perkins delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen and Judge Kent E. Cattani joined.
PERKINS, Judge:
¶1 Leshon Kyle Jones petitions this Court for review from the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32. We have considered the petition for review and, for the reasons stated, grant review, but deny relief.
¶2 Jones pled guilty to first degree murder. Before sentencing, he unsuccessfully sought to withdraw from the plea agreement. Abiding by the parties' stipulation, the superior court imposed a life sentence with the possibility of release after 25 years. Jones then petitioned the superior court for post-conviction relief. He alleged his trial counsel was ineffective by failing to move for a hearing under State v. Dessureault, 104 Ariz. 380 (1969), because one of the purported witnesses to the crime admitted in an interview that he could not identify Jones. Jones also argued his plea was unlawfully induced, asserting his lawyer urged him to accept a plea by telling him that if he went to trial and was convicted, he would face a natural life sentence. He also argued his lawyer declined to obtain a handwriting expert and failed to complete "all kinds of interviews." He also argued newly discovered evidence, asserting that he had obtained a letter showing that his codefendant had lied. Further, Jones argued that a detective had lied to the grand jury when he testified that witnesses had positively identified him. The superior court summarily denied relief, and Jones timely petitioned this Court for review.
¶3 In his petition for review, Jones does not raise the claims he argued in his petition for post-conviction relief. Instead, he raises a new issue, arguing that his trial lawyer was ineffective by failing to advise him during plea negotiations that the two eyewitnesses had equivocated during interviews about whether they had positively identified him as involved in the crime. Jones asserts that if he had seen the interviews, he "would have definitely went to trial." In the petition he filed in the superior court, Jones did not argue his lawyer was ineffective in advising him in connection with the plea by failing to allow him to see the two interviews before he agreed
to plead guilty. A petition for review may not present issues not first presented to the superior court. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(4)(B)(ii). "[C]ompliance with Rule 32 is not a mere formality." Canion v. Cole, 210 Ariz. 598, 600, ¶ 11 (2005). A petitioner must "strictly comply" with Rule 32 to be entitled to relief. Id.
¶4 Accordingly, we grant review, but deny relief.