STATE v. ODOM
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. DARREN ODOM, Petitioner. No. 1 CA-CR 15-0807 PRPC FILED 6-22-2017 Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2010-157731-001 The Honorable Sherry K. Stephens, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Diane Meloche Counsel for Respondent Darren Odom, Florence Petitioner MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Jon W. Thompson and Judge Paul J. McMurdie joined. STATE v. ODOM Decision of the Court C A T T A N I, Judge: ¶1 Darren Odom petitions for review from the superior court’s dismissal of his untimely petition for post-conviction relief. For reasons that follow, we grant review but deny relief. ¶2 Odom pleaded guilty to two counts of attempted molestation of a child under Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) § 13-1410 and one count of sexual abuse under A.R.S. § 13-1404, all class 3 felonies and dangerous crimes against children.1 In accordance with the plea agreement, the superior court sentenced him in February 2012 to 7.5 years’ incarceration for one attempted molestation count, and placed him on lifetime probation for each of the other two offenses. ¶3 Odom filed this petition for post-conviction relief in September 2015, over three and a half years after sentencing.2 He claimed that the court had imposed an illegal sentence by placing him on lifetime probation, arguing that under A.R.S. § 13-902, the maximum probationary term for a class 3 felony is five years. The superior court dismissed the petition both as untimely and on the merits. ¶4 We deny relief. Odom’s petition was filed more than three years late. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.4(a). Although this is arguably Odom’s first of-right petition, he failed to allege or support any claim that his untimely filing was without fault and thus excusable. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.1(f) (“The defendant’s failure to file a notice of post-conviction relief ofright . . . within the prescribed time was without fault on the defendant’s part.”). Thus, the superior court properly rejected the petition as untimely. ¶5 Moreover, Odom’s claim fails on the merits. Although class 3 felonies in general are subject to a maximum probationary term of five years, see A.R.S. § 13-902(A)(2), the same statute specifies a probationary term “not less than the term that is specified in subsection A of this section up to and including life” for conviction of an attempt or a completed offense from Title 13, Chapter 14 (“Sexual Offenses”). A.R.S. § 13-902(E). Both Absent material revisions after the relevant date, we cite a statute’s current version. 1 Odom had previously filed a request for “Permission To File Delayed / Untimely Post-Conviction Relief” in June 2015, which the superior court denied for failure to state and support any claims amenable to consideration in an untimely petition. 2 2 STATE v. ODOM Decision of the Court attempted molestation under § 13-1410 and sexual abuse under § 13-1404 are Chapter 14 offenses. Thus, lifetime probation is an authorized probationary term for those two offenses. ¶6 Accordingly, we grant review but deny relief. AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court FILED: AA 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
