STATE v. HARRISON
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. MELVIN LEE HARRISON, Petitioner. No. 1 CA-CR 14-0563 PRPC FILED 8-2-2016 Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2012-164101-001 The Honorable Bruce R. Cohen, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Diane Meloche Counsel for Respondent Melvin Lee Harrison, San Luis Petitioner Pro Per STATE v. HARRISON Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Jon W. Thompson delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Margaret H. Downie joined. T H O M P S O N, Judge: ¶1 Petitioner Melvin Lee Harrison petitions this court for review from the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. We have considered the petition for review and, for the reasons stated, grant review but deny relief. ¶2 Harrison pled guilty to aggravated assault and the trial court sentenced him to a stipulated term of six years’ imprisonment. Harrison now seeks review of the summary dismissal of his second notice of postconviction relief. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.9(c) and Arizona Revised Statute § 13-4239(C) (2010). ¶3 Harrison argues his trial counsel was ineffective when he failed to argue that the State and/or the trial court engaged in pre and postindictment delay of the proceedings and, therefore, failed to comply with the “speedy trial” provisions of Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 8. Harrison further argues his first post-conviction relief counsel was ineffective when he failed to allege trial counsel was ineffective for these same reasons and when his first post-conviction counsel failed to raise the Rule 8 claims independently. ¶4 We deny review. Harrison failed to present any colorable claims for relief because neither counsel was ineffective when they failed to raise these issues. Harrison pled guilty. A valid plea agreement waives all non-jurisdictional defenses, errors and defects which occurred prior to the plea. State v. Moreno, 134 Ariz. 199, 200, 655 P.2d 23, 24 (App. 1982). More specifically, a defendant who enters a guilty plea waives all issues 2 STATE v. HARRISON Decision of the Court regarding the right to a speedy trial. State v. Ellis, 117 Ariz. 329, 331, 572 P.2d 791, 793 (1977).1 ¶5 For the foregoing reasons, we grant review but deny relief. : AA While this is not one of the grounds upon which the superior court dismissed the petition, we may affirm a result on any basis supported by the record. State v. Robinson, 153 Ariz. 191, 199, 735 P.2d 801, 809 (1987). 1 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.
