Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 13-0136 PRPC
07-31-2014
STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. JON HENRY ROBERTSON, Petitioner.
COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Diane M. Meloche Counsel for Respondent Jon Henry Robertson, Douglas Petitioner Pro Se
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED.
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2011-142931-001
The Honorable Robert L. Gottsfield, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL
Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Diane M. Meloche Counsel for Respondent
Jon Henry Robertson, Douglas Petitioner Pro Se
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge John C. Gemmill delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Andrew W. Gould and Judge Donn Kessler joined.
GEMMILL, Judge:
¶1 Petitioner Jon Henry Robertson petitions this court for review of the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. Presiding Judge John C. Gemmill and Judges Andrew W. Gould and Donn Kessler have considered the petition for review. For the reasons stated below, this court grants review and denies relief.
¶2 Robertson pled no contest to aggravated assault and the trial court sentenced him to the minimum term of 1.85 years' imprisonment. Robertson filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief of-right after his counsel found no colorable claims for relief. The trial court summarily dismissed the petition and Robertson now seeks review. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.9(c).
¶3 All of the issues Robertson presents for review are based on his claim that he is innocent because he did not assault the victim. Robertson argues that because he did not assault the victim, there is an insufficient factual basis to support his plea, his trial counsel should not have advised him to accept the plea offer, his plea was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary, and the presentence report was erroneous and misleading.
¶4 At the change of plea hearing, Robertson admitted that during an interaction with law enforcement officers, he pushed an officer with the intent to insult or provoke the officer. This was sufficient to support his plea of no contest to aggravated assault. See Arizona Revised Statue ("A.R.S.") sections 13-1203(A)(3) (assault); 13-1204(A)(8)(a) (aggravated assault of a peace officer). The factual basis to support a plea of guilty or no contest need not show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but need only provide "strong evidence" of guilt. State v. Salinas, 181 Ariz. 104, 106, 887 P.2d 985, 987 (1994). Because Robertson provided a sufficient factual basis to support his plea, none of the claims he raised based on his alleged innocence are colorable.
¶5 While the petition for review presents additional issues, Robertson did not raise those issues in the petition for post-conviction relief he filed below. A petition for review may not present issues that have not first been presented to the trial court. State v. Bortz, 169 Ariz. 575, 577, 821 P.2d 236, 238 (App. 1991); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii).
¶6 Having reviewed Robertson's petition and claims, we deny relief.