State v. Wright

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

ANTHONY JEROME WRIGHT, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 24-0327 PRPC
FILED 02-13-2025

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2010-007912-008
The Honorable Scott Sebastian Minder, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Josh Maxwell, Sarah E. Heckathorne
Counsel for Respondent

Daniel R. Raynak, P.C., Phoenix
By Daniel R. Raynak
Counsel for Petitioner
 STATE v. WRIGHT
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Vice Chief Judge Randall M. Howe delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Presiding Judge Cynthia J. Bailey and Judge Andrew M. Jacobs
joined.

H O W E, Judge:

¶1 Anthony Wright petitions this Court for review of the
superior court’s dismissal of his first petition for post-conviction relief. For
the following reasons, we grant review but deny relief.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 In 2010, Wright was indicted on three counts of first-degree
murder, three counts of attempted armed robbery, conspiracy to commit
armed robbery, conspiracy to commit sale or transportation of marijuana,
conspiracy to commit possession of marijuana for sale, attempted sale of
marijuana, and transportation of marijuana. In 2019, a jury found Wright
guilty of conspiracy to commit sale or transportation of marijuana and
conspiracy to commit possession of marijuana for sale but was unable to
reach a verdict on the other counts. In 2020, Wright pled guilty to second-
degree murder and conspiracy to commit possession of marijuana for sale.
The murder charge carried a sentencing range of ten to twenty-two years
imprisonment with a presumptive sentence of sixteen years. Pursuant to
the plea agreement, the parties agreed to a sentence of no more than
eighteen years imprisonment for the murder charge and supervised
probation for the marijuana charge.

¶3 At sentencing, the court heard from numerous interested
parties. Both the State and defense counsel spoke about Wright’s lengthy
pre-conviction incarceration. Defense counsel argued both in a sentencing
memorandum and on the record that Wright’s experience in solitary
confinement for nine years awaiting his trial and later plea was punishment
that should mitigate his sentence. The State argued “[i]ssues happened . . .
that caused things [in] the jails’ discretion to move people around,” and that
the victims “had no control” over Wright’s confinement so “[h]e should not
be given credit for” that incarceration time. The State further argued “[i]f
the Court is going to take that argument seriously, then I would ask to allow

2
 STATE v. WRIGHT
Decision of the Court

us to bring witnesses in from the jail to tell you why this solitary
confinement issue happened.”

¶4 The court stated it considered the presentence report, the
attachments to the presentence report, as well as “all of the comments made
by everyone today,” and reviewed the change of plea proceeding before
sentencing Wright. As to the murder conviction, the court the noted several
mitigating and aggravating factors and imposed the presumptive term of
sixteen years. Regarding the marijuana conviction, the court suspended the
imposition of sentence and placed Wright on five years’ intensive probation
to begin upon his release.

¶5 Wright petitioned the superior court for post-conviction
relief, claiming the State made false statements and misled the court at
sentencing such that the court disregarded his term of solitary confinement.
The court found his claim colorable and ordered an evidentiary hearing,
after which it denied Wright’s petition for post-conviction relief. The court
found that “[t]he State implied at sentencing that the solitary confinement
could well be due to Mr. Wright’s own actions.” Still the court determined
that insufficient evidence established that the sentencing judge had
“disregarded solitary confinement as a mitigating factor” or that the
sentence would have been “below the presumptive of 16 years had the State
not made comments regarding the reasons for Mr. Wright’s solitary
confinement.” In its findings the court noted “Wright provided the [c]ourt
sufficient information regarding the solitary confinement through his
memorandum and comments at sentencing” and the court “listened to all
the argument and information presented and was fully aware of the solitary
confinement and Mr. Wright’s claim that it should be used to mitigate the
sentence.

¶6 Wright petitions this Court for review. We have jurisdiction
under A.R.S. §§ 13-4031, -4239 and Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 33.

DISCUSSION

¶7 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this Court will
not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief.
State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577 ¶ 19 (2012). The petitioner bears the
burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the
petition for post-conviction relief. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 538 ¶ 1
(App. 2011).

¶8 Wright argues that the court abused its discretion by failing
to grant him a new sentencing hearing. He contends that because the

3
 STATE v. WRIGHT
Decision of the Court

sentencing judge listed several aggravators and mitigators but neglected to
enumerate his lengthy term of pre-conviction solitary confinement that the
court improperly disregarded this factor. But Wright also concedes that
when imposing the presumptive sentence, the court is not required to list
any mitigators or aggravators. State v. Risco, 147 Ariz. 607, 609–10 (App.
1985). That the court did list some factors here is not dispositive when it
also stated that it reviewed all the comments made at sentencing, including
defense counsel’s argument regarding Wright’s pre-conviction
incarceration. Wright assumes that “[e]ither the Trial Court failed to
consider this clearly mitigating factor, or the Court was dissuaded from
doing so by the inaccurate statements of the prosecutor.” This is
unsupported by the record. The court explicitly stated it considered the
statements made at sentencing, including defense counsel’s plea to consider
Wright’s pre-conviction incarceration. Wright’s argument that “[t]he
[a]ppellate [c]ourt has sent cases down/or considered sending down cases
to the trial court for resentencing for a number of different reasons” is not
sufficient to warrant a resentencing.

¶9 Wright correctly notes that the court’s first minute entry
denying his request for post-conviction discovery contains a factual error.
In that minute entry, the court stated Wright did not show a need for
material or information to prepare his case because he “received a
minimum sentence allowed under the plea” so any misconduct on the
State’s part “did not impact the Defendant’s sentence.” Actually, Wright
received the presumptive sentence under the plea. But in a subsequent
minute entry, the court corrected this issue by granting Wright’s request for
discovery regarding “information related to the State’s knowledge of the
circumstances surrounding Defendant’s placement in solitary
confinement.” The judge who made this error was not the judge who
denied Wright’s petition for post-conviction relief and, in the order denying
Wright’s petition, the court correctly noted that Wright was sentenced to
the presumptive term under the plea. Wright does not appeal from the
mistaken minute entry and the error is harmless for these proceedings.

4
 STATE v. WRIGHT
Decision of the Court

CONCLUSION

¶10 Wright has not shown the superior court abused its
discretion. We grant review but deny relief.

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

5