STATE v. CABANAS
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. FELIPE PETRONE CABANAS, Petitioner. No. 1 CA-CR 21-0534 PRPC FILED 6-21-2022 Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR1999-006656 The Honorable Patricia A. Starr, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF GRANTED COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Julie A. Done, John Schneider Counsel for Respondent Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix By Kevin D. Heade, Mikel Steinfeld Counsel for Petitioner Arizona Justice Project, Phoenix By Karen S. Smith, Randal McDonald Counsel for Amicus Curiae Arizona Justice Project STATE v. CABANAS Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Jennifer M. Perkins delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge David D. Weinzweig and Judge Brian Y. Furuya joined. P E R K I N S, Judge: ¶1 Felipe Petrone Cabanas petitions for review of the superior court’s summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. For the following reasons, we grant review and relief, and we remand for an evidentiary hearing as provided by State v. Valencia, 241 Ariz. 206 (2016). ¶2 In 2001, Cabanas pled guilty to the first-degree murder of a police officer, an offense he committed at age 17. The superior court imposed a term of natural life in prison without the possibility of release. ¶3 Following the United States Supreme Court opinion in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), Cabanas petitioned for post-conviction relief, challenging the constitutionality of his natural life sentence. In denying relief, the superior court found that Cabanas’s sentence did not violate Miller because the sentence was not mandatory and the sentencing judge considered his age as a mitigating factor. We reversed that ruling and concluded that Valencia required an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the crime reflected transient immaturity, entitling Cabanas to resentencing under Miller. See State v. Cabanas, 1 CA-CR 15-0660, 2017 WL 3599595, at *2, ¶¶ 8–9 (Ariz. App. Aug. 22, 2017) (mem. decision). ¶4 On remand, the superior court expanded the evidentiary hearing’s scope to include reconstruction of the evidence presented at sentencing. Cabanas objected to reconstruction of the sentencing record and sought special action review. As relevant here, we directed the superior court “to decide the material issue presently before it: whether Cabanas’ crime reflected transient immaturity or irreparable corruption. It is not tasked with deciding whether the previous sentence should stand, nor may it base its decision on considerations by the previous sentencing judge.” See Cabanas v. Pineda, 246 Ariz. 12, 20, ¶ 30 (App. 2018). Once again, we granted relief and remanded for an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Valencia. Id. at 20–21, ¶¶ 32–34. 2 STATE v. CABANAS Decision of the Court ¶5 Before the superior court held the evidentiary hearing, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Jones v. Mississippi, 141 S. Ct. 1307 (2021), and the State moved to vacate the hearing and dismiss Cabanas’s petition. The superior court granted the State’s motion and summarily dismissed Cabanas’s petition. The court found the basis for our mandate no longer existed because Jones implicitly overruled Valencia, and the current law no longer required an evidentiary hearing. Cabanas’s timely petition for review followed. ¶6 We recently held in State v. Wagner, 1 CA-CR 21-0492, 2022 WL 1463719, at *4–5, ¶¶ 20–21 (Ariz. App. May 10, 2022), that Jones neither modified nor implicitly overruled Valencia’s application of Miller. In Wagner, we granted relief and remanded for an evidentiary hearing consistent with Valencia. Id. at *1, ¶ 1. Because this case’s procedural background and circumstances are similar, we find Wagner dispositive and need not further address the parties’ arguments. As we have mandated twice before, we direct the superior court to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the crime reflected transient immaturity in accordance with Valencia. ¶7 We vacate the superior court’s dismissal of Cabanas’s petition for post-conviction relief and remand for further proceedings consistent with this decision. 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.
