STATE OF ARIZONA v. PATRICK REESE SLAY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. PATRICK REESE SLAY, Petitioner. No. 2 CA-CR 2017-0266-PR Filed December 12, 2017 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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 Cochise County No. CR920700368 The Honorable John F. Kelliher Jr., Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED Patrick Reese Slay, Buckeye In Propria Persona STATE v. SLAY Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Staring authored the decision of the Court, in which Judge Espinosa and Judge Brearcliffe concurred. S T A R I N G, Presiding Judge: ¶1 Patrick Slay seeks review of the trial court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, which constituted a petition for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P.1 We will not disturb the court’s order absent a clear abuse of discretion. See State v. Roseberry, 237 Ariz. 507, ¶ 7 (2015). Slay has not met his burden of demonstrating such abuse here. ¶2 Slay pled guilty to first-degree murder and armed robbery and was sentenced to life in prison for murder, to be followed by a twentythree-year prison term for robbery. As part of the plea, he admitted having committed the offenses while on release. The trial court summarily dismissed his first petition for post-conviction relief, and we denied relief on review. State v. Slay, No. 2 CA-CR 95-0679-PR (Ariz. App. May 30, 1996) (mem. decision). ¶3 In 2016, Slay filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus citing Rule 32.1(g) and asserting the United States Supreme Court’s holdings in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), and its predecessor, Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), are a significant change in the law. He argued he did not validly waive his right to a jury trial to determine “all facts used to aggravate [his] sentence” and that Blakely and Apprendi are retroactively applicable. The trial court summarily denied the petition, and this petition for review followed. ¶4 On review, Slay repeats his claims. As the trial court correctly pointed out, however, this court has concluded Blakely was not retroactive and, thus, applied only to “cases not yet final on direct review the day 1Although the trial court did not do so expressly, it was required by Rule 32.3 to treat Slay’s filing as a petition for post-conviction relief. Accordingly, we construe his petition for review as seeking relief pursuant to Rule 32.9(c). 2 STATE v. SLAY Decision of the Court Blakely was decided.” State v. Febles, 210 Ariz. 589, ¶¶ 7, 9 & n.4 (App. 2005). Slay’s convictions were final long before Blakely was decided. See id. ¶ 9. He is not entitled to relief pursuant to Rule 32.1(g). ¶5 We grant review but 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.
