State v. Cameron

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

SHAWN DOUGLAS CAMERON, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 24-0552 PRPC
FILED 03-06-2025

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Mohave County
No. S8015CR201700132
The Honorable Lee Frank Jantzen, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Mohave County Attorney’s Office, Kingman
By Matthew J. Smith
Counsel for Respondent

Shawn Douglas Cameron, Florence
Petitioner
 STATE v. CAMERON
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Paul J. McMurdie delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Anni Hill Foster and Judge Michael J. Brown joined.

M c M U R D I E, Judge:

¶1 Shawn Douglas Cameron petitions this court to review the
summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief (“PCR”) filed
under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure (“Rule”) 32.1. We grant review
but deny relief.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 For years, Cameron regularly sexually abused a child in his
care. State v. Cameron, 1 CA-CR 19-0513, 2020 WL 7401271, at *1, ¶¶ 2-4
(Ariz. App. Dec. 17, 2020) (mem. decision). A jury convicted him of three
offenses, and the court sentenced him to three consecutive prison terms. Id.
at *1, ¶ 7. We affirmed his convictions on direct appeal but remanded the
case for resentencing because the superior court mistakenly believed it
lacked the discretion to order concurrent sentences for two convictions. Id.
at *7, ¶¶ 33-36. The superior court resentenced Cameron to concurrent
prison terms on the two convictions, to be served consecutively to the third
conviction.

¶3 Cameron petitioned the superior court for PCR based on
ineffective assistance of counsel (“IAC”), submitting his arguments pro se
after his counsel found no colorable claims. The superior court denied the
petition and Cameron’s rehearing request.

¶4 Cameron petitioned this court for review. We have
jurisdiction under Article 6, Section 9 of the Arizona Constitution, Arizona
Revised Statutes § 13-4239, and Rule 32.16.

2
 STATE v. CAMERON
Decision of the Court

DISCUSSION

¶5 Cameron seeks relief based on trial counsel’s witness
selection and plea-offer communications.1 See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.1(a); State
v. Spreitz, 202 Ariz. 1, 3, ¶ 9 (2002). Cameron bears the burden of showing
the denial of PCR constituted an abuse of discretion or legal error. State v.
Reed, 252 Ariz. 236, 238, ¶ 6 (App. 2021). He fails to meet that burden.

¶6 A colorable IAC claim requires proof that counsel’s
performance was deficient and prejudicial. Strickland v. Washington, 466
U.S. 668, 687 (1984). A failure to prove either element dooms the claim. State
v. Bennett, 213 Ariz. 562, 567, ¶ 21 (2006). To show deficient performance,
the defendant must overcome a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct
could constitute a sound trial strategy. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689. The
defendant must provide evidence that the conduct was objectively
unreasonable in view of prevailing professional standards. Id. at 687-88.
Relying on conclusory assertions or simply disagreeing with counsel’s
strategic decisions is insufficient. See State v. Pandeli, 242 Ariz. 175, 181, ¶ 8
(2017); State v. Leyva, 241 Ariz. 521, 527-28, ¶ 21 (App. 2017). Similarly, to
show prejudice, the defendant must provide some evidence, not just
conclusory assertions, of a reasonable probability that counsel’s deficient
performance affected the case’s outcome. State v. Rosario, 195 Ariz. 264, 268,
¶ 23 (App. 1999); See State v. Donald, 198 Ariz. 406, 414, ¶ 20-21 (App. 2000).

¶7 Cameron contends counsel should have called family
members and friends to testify. Counsel explained in affidavits that they
discussed the witness selection with Cameron before the trial. The secretive
nature of Cameron’s crimes limited family and friends’ relevant testimony
to character evidence. Even if such evidence were admissible, offering it
risked opening the door to rebuttal evidence detrimental to Cameron’s case.
See Ariz. R. Evid. 404. Thus, counsel made a reasonable strategic decision
not to call the witnesses. Cameron fails to show the decision amounted to
deficient performance. He also fails to show a reasonable probability he
would not have been convicted but for that decision.

1 Cameron also complains in his review petition that appellate counsel
failed to keep him informed, failed to raise his desired issues, and delayed
starting the PCR proceedings. But because he never mentioned these issues
in his PCR petition in the superior court, they are waived. Ariz. R. Crim. P.
32.16(c)(4).

3
 STATE v. CAMERON
Decision of the Court

¶8 Cameron also claims that counsel failed to tell him about the
plea offers. A defendant is entitled to a hearing on such a claim if he or she
“present[s] more than a conclusory assertion that counsel failed to
adequately communicate the plea offer or the consequences of conviction.”
Donald, 198 Ariz. at 413, ¶ 17. The defendant “need not provide detailed
evidence, but must provide specific factual allegations” and “should
support such allegations by sworn statements or provide a satisfactory
explanation of their absence.” Id. When there is doubt, the court should
hold a hearing. Id.

¶9 Here, the court reasonably denied relief without holding a
hearing because Cameron failed to establish a colorable claim of deficient
performance. He made no effort to offer evidence or support his assertion
that his counsel failed to notify him of plea offers. The only evidence was to
the contrary. Counsel offered sworn statements that they kept Cameron
informed of plea negotiations throughout the case. And the record shows
plea offers were discussed during at least one pretrial hearing in Cameron
and counsel’s presence.

¶10 The superior court properly denied PCR.

CONCLUSION

¶11 We accept review but deny relief.

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

4