State v. Jackson

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

ALAWISUCES JACKSON, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 19-0244 PRPC
FILED 4-30-2020

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2014-156357-001 DT
CR2015-000957-001
CR2016-142826-001
CR2017-002912-002
The Honorable Joseph P. Mikitish, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Robert E. Prather
Counsel for Respondent

Alawisuces Jackson, Tucson
Petitioner

STATE v. JACKSON
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 James B. Morse Jr. joined.

P E R K I N S, Judge:

¶1 Alawisuces Jackson petitions this court for review from the
dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Arizona
Rule of Criminal Procedure 33. See Ariz. S. Ct. Order No. R-19-0012 (Aug.
29, 2019). We have considered the petition for review and, for the reasons
stated, grant review and deny relief.

¶2 Jackson pleaded guilty, in four separate cases, to the
following charges: possessing narcotic drugs (cocaine) (CR2014-156357-
001); aggravated taking the identity of another (CR2015-000957-001);
possessing dangerous drugs for sale (methamphetamine) and misconduct
involving weapons (CR2016-142826-001); and conspiring to promote prison
contraband (CR2017-002912-002). In accordance with the plea agreements,
the superior court sentenced him to concurrent prison terms, the longest
being ten years, to be followed by a four-year term of probation after his
release.

¶3 Jackson timely petitioned for post-conviction relief, and the
superior court appointed counsel to represent him. The court subsequently
granted Jackson’s request to represent himself, and Jackson filed a pro se
petition for post-conviction relief. Finding no colorable claims, the court
summarily dismissed his petition. Jackson timely seeks review of that
decision, which we will not disturb absent an abuse of discretion. State v.
Amaral, 239 Ariz. 217, 219, ¶ 9 (2016).

¶4 Despite asserting multiple grounds for relief in his underlying
petition to the superior court, Jackson asks this court to consider a single
issue—whether the superior court lacked jurisdiction to convict or sentence
him. Jackson has waived our review of other claims raised in his underlying
petition by not including them in his petition for review. See Ariz. R. Crim.
P. 33.16(c)(4). We conclude the superior court correctly rejected Jackson’s
remaining claim and therefore find no abuse of discretion.

2

STATE v. JACKSON
Decision of the Court

¶5 Article 4, Section 24 of the Arizona Constitution requires
“every bill” passed by the legislature or through the initiative process to
include a specified “enacting clause.” Jackson contends that the statutes on
which his convictions and sentences are based are without force because
those statutes, as compiled in the Arizona Revised Statutes, do not include
the particular enacting language set forth in the Arizona Constitution.

¶6 Jackson’s position is meritless because it does not account for
the distinction between bills and statutes. A bill is a “legislative proposal
offered for debate before its enactment.” Bill, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th
ed. 2019). A statute, on the other hand, is the law actually “enacted” by the
legislature. Statute, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). While the
Arizona Constitution requires that “bills” adopting legislation include
specific enacting language, it does not require the same of statutes—i.e., the
legislation published after its adoption. Indeed, the director of the Arizona
legislative counsel is mandated, when preparing laws for publication, to
“[o]mit from the statutes all temporary laws, all titles to acts, all enacting and
repealing clauses, all declarations of emergency, and all purpose, validity and
construction clauses unless, from their nature, it may be necessary to retain
some of them to preserve the full meaning and intent of the law.” A.R.S.
§ 41-1304.02(B)(1) (emphasis added).

¶7 Jackson does not dispute that the bills adopting the statutes
underlying his convictions and sentences were duly enacted in accordance
with Article 4, Section 24 of the Arizona Constitution. Furthermore, A.R.S.
§ 1-101 “adopt[s] and enact[s]” the Arizona Revised Statutes as designated.

¶8 We therefore grant review but deny relief.

AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
FILED: AA

3