STATE OF ARIZONA v. ANTHONY JACKSON
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. ANTHONY JACKSON, Petitioner. No. 2 CA-CR 2015-0485-PR Filed February 11, 2016 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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 Mohave County No. CR20000796 The Honorable Richard Weiss, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED Anthony Jackson, Buckeye In Propria Persona STATE v. JACKSON Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Staring authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Howard and Judge Espinosa concurred. S T A R I N G, Judge: ¶1 Anthony Jackson petitions for review of the trial court's order summarily dismissing his untimely, successive petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. We grant review, but deny relief. ¶2 Pursuant to a plea agreement, Jackson was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to an eighteen-year prison term. He previously has initiated at least four post-conviction relief proceedings, and the instant one is both untimely and successive. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2, 32.4(a). The trial court dismissed his petition upon concluding all of his claims were precluded. ¶3 Jackson’s petition for review merely consists of conclusory assertions that his claims are not precluded, and he fails to develop any argument relating any legal authority to the trial court’s resolution of his specific claims for post-conviction relief. And the authorities he cites, including State v. Pruett, 185 Ariz. 128, 912 P.2d 1357 (App. 1995), are inapplicable to a successive Rule 32 proceeding like this one.1 Jackson has therefore failed to meet his burden of showing the court abused its discretion in summarily dismissing his petition. See State v. Bennett, 213 Ariz. 562, ¶ 17, 146 P.3d 63, 67 (2006) (summary denial of post-conviction relief reviewed for abuse of discretion). Pruett involved the dismissal of a pleading defendant’s second petition for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with his first petition, as well as the dismissal of a third petition before the deadline for identifying particular claims for relief. 185 Ariz. at 131-32, 912 P.2d at 1360-61. 1 2 STATE v. JACKSON Decision of the Court ¶4 For the foregoing reasons, as well as those cited in the trial court’s ruling, we grant review, but we deny relief. 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.
