STATE v. JACKSON
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. ANTHONY DEAN JACKSON, Petitioner. No. 1 CA-CR 16-0489 PRPC FILED 9-19-2017 Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR 1995-008205 The Honorable Margaret R. Mahoney, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Diane M. Meloche Counsel for Respondent Anthony Dean Jackson, Los Angeles, California Petitioner MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge James P. Beene joined. STATE v. JACKSON Decision of the Court W I N T H R O P, Judge: ¶1 Anthony Dean Jackson petitions this court for review of the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief (“PCR”). We have considered the petition for review and, for the reasons stated, grant review but deny relief. ¶2 A jury found Jackson guilty of kidnapping and sexual abuse, but acquitted him on four counts of sexual assault. The trial court sentenced Jackson to concurrent terms of 9.25 years’ imprisonment for the kidnapping conviction and 2.25 years’ imprisonment for the sexual abuse conviction. This court affirmed his convictions and sentences in State v. Jackson, 1 CACR 96-0420 (Ariz. App. Jan. 15, 1998) (mem. decision). ¶3 In this, his eleventh PCR, Jackson claimed he is entitled to relief under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure (“Rule”) 32.1(f), ineffective assistance of counsel, unconstitutional search and seizure, and a violation of his right to represent himself under Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975). The superior court summarily dismissed his PCR. ¶4 Jackson filed his petition for review, first claiming a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and second, requesting a re-sentencing and monetary remuneration. He also briefly references his Faretta claim in the petition. The first two issues were not presented to the superior court. Issues not presented to the superior court may not be presented in the petition for review. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii); State v. Wagstaff, 161 Ariz. 66, 71, 775 P.2d 1130, 1135 (App. 1988), approved as modified, 164 Ariz. 485, 794 P.2d 118 (1990); State v. Ramirez, 126 Ariz. 464, 468, 616 P.2d 924, 928 (App. 1980). We decline to review Jackson’s new claims presented here. ¶5 Rule 32.9 requires a petitioner to indicate the issues “decided by the trial court which the defendant wishes to present to the appellate court for review” and “[t]he facts material to a consideration of the issues presented for review.” Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii)-(iii). Additionally, a petitioner is not to simply “incorporate any document by reference.” Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1)(iv). Jackson simply attaches his PCR to the petition for review. By not addressing his Rule 32.1(f), ineffective assistance of counsel, and search and seizure claims in his petition for review, he has waived review. “Failure to raise any issue that could be raised in the petition or the cross-petition for review shall constitute waiver of appellate review of that issue.” Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1). 2 STATE v. JACKSON Decision of the Court ¶6 Most of the remainder of his pleading is simply a rehash of the evidence, and an unhelpful diatribe against the victim and the courts, and is not a serious attempt to produce a colorable claim. ¶7 Finally, as the superior court noted, Jackson’s Faretta claim is untimely under Rule 32.4(a) and successive. The superior court correctly noted a dismissal of this same claim in 2010. Jackson raised it again in 2012, and it was rejected a second time. The claim is therefore precluded under Rule 32.2(a)(2). ¶8 Accordingly, although we grant review, we 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.
