State v. Crockett

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

CHARLES TAYLOR CROCKETT, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 24-0215 PRPC
FILED 03-13-2025

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2011-006752-003
The Honorable David J. Palmer, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Philip D. Garrow
Counsel for Respondent

Charles Taylor Crockett, Florence
Petitioner
 STATE v. CROCKETT
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Angela K. Paton delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Vice Chief Judge Randall M.
Howe joined.

P A T O N, Judge:

¶1 Charles Taylor Crockett petitions for review from the
dismissal of his fifth petition for post-conviction relief (“PCR”). We grant
review and deny relief.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 A jury convicted Crockett of seven felonies and two
misdemeanors based on his participation in a home invasion in 2012. We
affirmed his convictions and sentences on direct appeal. Crockett has filed
four previous PCR petitions, which the superior court summarily
dismissed.

¶3 Crockett filed his fifth PCR seeking post-conviction relief
under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure (“Rule”) 32.1(a) and (g) which
the superior court summarily dismissed. The superior court concluded that
Crockett’s claims were precluded under Rule 32.2(a)(2) because his claimed
grounds for relief “collectively amount to a sufficiency of the evidence
claim” which was rejected on direct appeal. The court concluded that
regardless of preclusion, Crockett “has failed to state a claim for which relief
can be granted” because he “must assert substantive claims and adequately
explain the reasons for their untimely assertion.” Crockett then filed this
petition for review.

DISCUSSION

¶4 We review the superior court’s denial of a PCR petition “for
an abuse of discretion, which occurs if the court makes an error of law or
fails to adequately investigate the facts necessary to support its decision.”
State v. Bigger, 251 Ariz. 402, 407, ¶ 6 (2021). The petitioner bears the burden
of establishing an abuse of discretion. State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 538,
¶ 1 (App. 2011). When the superior court determines that a petition
presents no “material issue of fact or law that would entitle the defendant
to relief under [Rule 32], the court must summarily dismiss the petition.”

2
 STATE v. CROCKETT
Decision of the Court

Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.11(a) (emphasis added). We will affirm the superior
court’s decision “if it is legally correct for any reason.” State v. Roseberry, 237 Ariz. 507, 508, ¶ 7 (2015).

¶5 Crockett argues the superior court mischaracterized his
“pleadings and issues” as amounting to a “sufficiency of the evidence
claim.” He asserts that he presented three grounds for relief: (1)
misapplication of the law because the Arizona Rule of Evidence 104
evidentiary hearing was insufficient, (2) Rehaif error, and (3) cumulative
error.

¶6 Crockett contends he presented a Rule 32.1(a) argument that
the Rule 104 evidentiary hearing was insufficient which violated his
constitutional right to a fair trial. “Generally, a defendant is precluded from
relief under Rule 32 based on any ground that could have been raised on
appeal or in a previous PCR proceeding.” State v. Evans, 252 Ariz. 590, 595,
¶ 10 (App. 2022); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a)(3). Because this is a ground for
relief under Rule 32.1(a), it is precluded under Rule 32.2(a)(3) because it was
not raised on appeal or in any previous post-conviction proceeding. Evans,
252 Ariz. at 595, ¶ 10; see also State v. Macias, 249 Ariz. 335, 341, ¶ 20 (App.
2020). Crockett expressly states that he did not previously raise this claim.

¶7 Crockett next argues he presented a Rule 32.1(g) ground for
relief based on a change in the law resulting from Rehaif v. United States, 588
U.S. 225 (2019). Rule 32.1(g) provides an exception to the general preclusion
rule when “there has been a significant change in the law that, if applicable
to the defendant’s case, would probably overturn the defendant’s judgment
or sentence.” Evans, 252 Ariz. at 595, ¶ 10 (emphasis added); Ariz. R. Crim.
P. 32.2(b) (claims for relief based on Rule 32.1(b) through (h) are not subject
to preclusion under Rule 32.2(a)(3)). But Rehaif does not provide a basis for
Rule 32.1(g) relief because there, the United States Supreme Court
interpreted a federal statute that is irrelevant to this case. Evans, 252 Ariz.
at 597, ¶ 21. Accordingly, Rehaif does not provide a significant change in
the law applicable to Crockett’s case.

¶8 Crockett also asserts cumulative error. But Arizona courts do
not recognize the cumulative error doctrine in this context. State v. Hughes, 193 Ariz. 72, 78-79, ¶ 25 (1998). Crockett acknowledges this and specifies
that he only asserted the argument to “preserv[e] his right for habeas
review.” Accordingly, Crockett has not presented a ground for relief.

¶9 Crockett has failed to show the superior court abused its
discretion in dismissing his PCR petition.

3
 STATE v. CROCKETT
Decision of the Court

CONCLUSION

¶10 We grant review and deny relief.

MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court
FILED: JR

4