STATE OF ARIZONA v. DENNIS LAPRELL DIKES, II
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. DENNIS LAPRELL DIKES II, Petitioner. No. 2 CA-CR 2015-0029-PR Filed March 5, 2015 THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24. Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Navajo County Nos. S0900CR20010192 and S0900CR20010380 The Honorable Robert J. Higgins, Judge DISMISSED COUNSEL Mark Brnovich, Arizona Attorney General By Daniel P. Schaack, Assistant Attorney General, Phoenix Counsel for Respondent Dennis L. Dikes II, Florence In Propria Persona STATE v. DIKES Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Chief Judge Eckerstrom authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Miller and Judge Espinosa concurred. E C K E R S T R O M, Chief Judge: ¶1 Dennis Dikes II seeks review of the trial court’s order rejecting his motion for clarification of his sentence. Because there is no final decision on a petition for post-conviction relief for us to review pursuant to Rule 32.9(c), Ariz. R. Crim. P., we dismiss Dikes’s petition. ¶2 In 2001, Dikes pled guilty to aggravated assault and two counts of escape and was sentenced to concurrent prison terms, the longest of which was 7.5 years. At the time of those offenses, Dikes was in the custody of the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADOC), having been sentenced in 2000 to concurrent and consecutive prison terms totaling fifteen years—specifically, concurrent prison terms of 2.5 years for use of a dangerous drug and three years for third-degree burglary, to be followed by a twelveyear sentence for attempted sexual conduct with a minor. The plea agreement and sentencing minute entry for the 2001 convictions both stated that Dikes’s sentences were to run consecutively “to the term currently being served.” ¶3 In September 2012, Dikes filed a “motion for cla[rif]ication and order to comply/cases consolidated per plea agreement,” in which he claimed ADOC had incorrectly altered his release date from “early 2012” to “late 2018” to reflect that his 7.5year sentence would not begin until the expiration of the twelveyear prison term, imposed in another case, for attempted sexual conduct with a minor. He asserted ADOC had done so in retaliation for his having filed a grievance, and he asked the trial court to clarify that his 7.5-year sentence would run consecutively only to his threeyear prison term for burglary, because that was the term he was 2 STATE v. DIKES Decision of the Court serving at the time he was sentenced for his conviction of aggravated assault. The court denied the motion, and this petition for review followed. ¶4 On review, Dikes repeats his claim that ADOC improperly altered his release date, asserting we have authority to review the trial court’s ruling pursuant to Rule 32.9(c). But that permits us to review only “the final decision of the trial court on the petition for post-conviction relief.” Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c). Dikes did not file a petition for post-conviction relief or otherwise attempt to bring his claims pursuant to Rule 32. Indeed, his motion was directed at alleged conduct by ADOC, and the Arizona Attorney General responded on ADOC’s behalf. Thus, no final decision as contemplated by Rule 32.9(c) is presented here and there is nothing for us to review. Accordingly, the petition for review is dismissed. 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.
