Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 14-0665 PRPC
09-27-2016
STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. KENNETH LESLIE JACKSON, Petitioner.
COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Diane Meloche Counsel for Respondent Kenneth Leslie Jackson, San Luis 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. CR2009-177562-001
The Honorable Michael W. Kemp, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix
By Diane Meloche
Counsel for Respondent Kenneth Leslie Jackson, San Luis
Petitioner
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Peter B. Swann delivered the decision of the court, in which Presiding Judge Andrew W. Gould and Judge Patricia A. Orozco joined. SWANN, Judge:
¶1 Kenneth Leslie Jackson petitions this court for review from the dismissal of his untimely successive proceeding for post-conviction relief. Jackson contends that his counsel in his "of-right" post-conviction-relief proceeding was ineffective because he failed to raise an issue under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
¶2 We grant review, but we deny relief. Jackson could have raised his claim in a timely second post-conviction-relief proceeding. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.4(a). Further, Jackson's "of-right" counsel could not have raised a Miranda issue because a plea agreement waives all non-jurisdictional defenses, errors and defects, including deprivations of constitutional rights that occurred before the plea. State v. Moreno, 134 Ariz. 199, 200 (App. 1982); Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973).
A defendant is entitled to effective assistance of counsel in an "of-right" post-conviction-relief proceeding. State v. Pruett, 185 Ariz. 128, 131 (App. 1995). --------