Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2017-0380-PR
03-02-2018
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. GERRAD BENTON NANCE, Petitioner.
COUNSEL William G. Montgomery, Maricopa County Attorney By Daniel Strange, Deputy County Attorney, Phoenix Counsel for Respondent James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender By Kevin D. Heade, Deputy Public Defender, Phoenix 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 Maricopa County
Nos. CR2014161367001DT and CR2015001755001DT
The Honorable Virginia L. Richter, Judge Pro Tempore
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL
William G. Montgomery, Maricopa County Attorney
By Daniel Strange, Deputy County Attorney, Phoenix
Counsel for Respondent
James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender
By Kevin D. Heade, Deputy Public Defender, Phoenix
Counsel for Petitioner
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Staring authored the decision of the Court, in which Chief Judge Eckerstrom and Judge Brearcliffe concurred.
STARING, Presiding Judge:
¶1 Gerrad Nance seeks review of the trial court's order summarily denying his petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. We will not disturb that order unless the court abused its discretion. See State v. Roseberry, 237 Ariz. 507, ¶ 7 (2015). Nance has not shown such abuse here.
¶2 Nance pled guilty to sexual abuse and aggravated assault. The trial court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed Nance on lifetime probation for sexual abuse and a concurrent, three-year probation term for aggravated assault.
¶3 Nance sought post-conviction relief, arguing his plea was involuntary because he was "not properly informed that North Carolina could reject the transfer of his probation from Arizona," his "lengthy pretrial incarceration overcame [his] will," he was "never informed" the trial court could defer deciding whether he would be required to register as a sex offender, and "counsel intentionally laid a vague factual basis . . . to encourage" him to plead guilty. He also asserted his counsel had been ineffective by "promis[ing]" him he would be permitted to transfer his probation to North Carolina, thereby inducing his guilty plea. Finally, Nance argued his guilty plea was "illegal" because the factual basis "rendered the charges multiplicitous" and thus "subject[ed him] to the possibility of double punishment." The court summarily denied relief. This petition for review followed.
¶4 On review, Nance repeats his claims and asserts he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing. He is entitled to a hearing only if he has presented a colorable claim for relief, that is, "he has alleged facts which, if true, would probably have changed the verdict or sentence." State v. Amaral, 239 Ariz. 217, ¶¶ 10-11 (2016). We have reviewed the record and agree with the trial court that no evidentiary hearing is warranted. The court correctly identified and addressed Nance's claims in a thorough and well-reasoned
minute entry, which we accordingly adopt. See State v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 274 (App. 1993).
¶5 Although we grant review, we deny relief.