State v. Baker

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

JAMES PATRICK BAKER II, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 26-0143 PRPC
FILED 09-01-2026

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Mohave County
No. CR-2023-01340
The Honorable Billy K. Sipe, Judge Pro Tempore

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Mohave County Attorney’s Office, Kingman
By Jacob Cote
Counsel for Respondent

Southwest Legal Collective, Phoenix
By Robert Ian Casey
Counsel for Petitioner

STATE v. BAKER
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Vice Chief Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court,
in which Presiding Judge D. Steven Williams and Judge Anni Hill Foster
joined.

W E I N Z W E I G, Vice Chief Judge:

¶1 James Patrick Baker II seeks review of the superior court’s
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 In December 2022, Baker was hired to work on a kitchen
counter in the victims’ home. State v. Baker, 1 CA-CR 24-0456, 2025 WL
1662618, *1, ¶ 2 (Ariz. App. June 12, 2025) (mem. decision). Baker provided
an estimate to the victims, who then gave Baker a $2,000 check as a down
payment. Id. Baker promised to complete the work by December 2022 but
had done no work by late 2023. Id. The victims filed a complaint against
Baker with the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“AROC”) for contracting
without a license.

¶3 A grand jury indicted Baker for, among other things,
fraudulent schemes and artifices and theft. After a trial, the jurors found
Baker guilty and the court sentenced him to five years’ incarceration. Id. at
¶¶ 4–5. Baker appealed, and this court affirmed his convictions and
sentences. Id. at ¶ 1.

¶4 After the appeal, Baker petitioned for post-conviction relief
on one issue: “[T]he trial court admitted a recording of the defendant’s
statements during the [State’s] case in chief that included his statements
that his constitutional beliefs come from his ‘God-given rights.’” That
recording was admitted during trial as part of a conversation between
Baker and an AROC investigator. The investigator tried to explain that he
was investigating a complaint against Baker and was seeking a statement.
Baker did not cooperate and was belligerent toward the investigator. Baker
said he was an “American national,” the investigator could sue or “however
you like,” and he would sue in federal court “right back at you.” When the

2

STATE v. BAKER
Decision of the Court

investigator told Baker about the contracting without a license complaint,
Baker said he did “not subscribe to your defunct corporation,” and did not
have to follow “your statutes and B.S.” Baker further advised, “I don’t fall
under your jurisdiction,” and said he operated under “common law,”
adding “[y]ou’re trying to go against my constitutional rights” and “[m]y
God-given rights.”

¶5 The superior court denied the claim as precluded because
Baker did not raise it on direct appeal, and the claim was not cognizable
under Rule 32.1(a) and meritless.

¶6 Baker petitioned this court for review. We have jurisdiction.
A.R.S. § 13-4239(C); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.16(a)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶7 We review the superior court’s denial of a PCR petition for an
abuse of discretion but review the interpretation of the criminal procedure
rules de novo. State v. Macias, 249 Ariz. 335, 339, ¶ 8 (App. 2020). The
superior court abuses its discretion when it commits an error of law or fails
to investigate the facts supporting its decision adequately. State v. Pandeli, 242 Ariz. 175, 180, ¶ 4 (2017). Baker bears the burden of proving that the
superior court erred. State v. Reed, 252 Ariz. 236, 238, ¶ 6 (App. 2021).

¶8 Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(a)(3) provides that a
defendant is precluded from relief under Rule 32.1(a) based on any ground
waived on appeal unless the claim raises a constitutional violation that can
only be waived knowingly, voluntarily and personally by the defendant.
See State v. Shrum, 220 Ariz. 115, 118, ¶ 12 (2009) (“Rule 32.2(a) precludes
collateral relief on a ground that either was or could have been raised on
direct appeal or in a previous PCR proceeding.”). Baker does not contend
he could not raise his evidentiary rule issue on direct appeal.

¶9 Baker contends he can still raise his evidentiary issue in the
PCR proceeding because his counsel filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Not so. An Anders brief represents that the appeal
presents no arguable issues; it does not preserve claims that could have
been raised on direct appeal. Those claims are still waived under Rule
32.2(a)(3). The filing of an Anders brief does not transform the direct appeal
into a vehicle that preserves all potential claims for later collateral attack.
Because Baker pursued the appeal—even though counsel found no
arguable issues—claims that could have been raised during that appeal are
precluded here.

3

STATE v. BAKER
Decision of the Court

¶10 A defendant who fails to challenge the admission of evidence
at trial or on direct appeal may still obtain post-conviction review if he
reframes the claim as one of ineffective assistance of counsel. See Ariz. R.
Crim. P. 32.1(a); cf. State v. Montoya, 258 Ariz. 128, 165, ¶ 119 (2024). But
Baker did not raise an appellate ineffective assistance claim in his PCR
petition. Nor did he allege his Arizona Rule of Evidence 610 claim
implicates a constitutional right that must be waived knowingly,
voluntarily and personally. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a)(3). Therefore, the
superior court correctly found the claim precluded. Because the issue is
precluded, we do not address the alternative basis found by the superior
court.

CONCLUSION

¶11 We grant review but deny relief.

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

4