State v. Anderson, 1 CA-CR 15-0237-PRPC

Petitioner William Paul Anderson filed a pro se consolidated petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) stemming from two criminal cases: a 2009 aggravated DUI case and a 2011 aggravated assault case.
In the 2009 case Anderson pled guilty to aggravated DUI, received a stipulated 4-month jail term, 226 days’ credit, and five years’ probation.
In the 2011 case Anderson pled guilty to aggravated assault and received a stipulated 10-year prison term; the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Anderson claims ineffective assistance of counsel in the 2011 case because counsel allegedly failed at an initial pretrial conference to explain the risks/benefits of a one-day-only State plea offer of 8 years and the sentencing exposure if he rejected it. He says he would have accepted the 8-year offer but for counsel’s failure to advise.
The superior court summarily dismissed Anderson’s PCR; Anderson sought review in the Court of Appeals. The State argued the earlier offer would have been withdrawn once the State learned of more severe victim injuries, so the offer would not have produced a more favorable result.
The Court of Appeals granted review, denied relief as to the 2009 case, but found Anderson presented a colorable claim in the 2011 case and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for not advising about an earlier one-day plea offer in 2011	Anderson: counsel failed to explain sentencing exposure and risks/benefits; would have accepted the 8-year offer	State/Superior Ct: even if offer existed, State would have withdrawn it once it learned of more severe victim injuries, so no more favorable result	Court: Anderson stated a colorable claim of ineffective assistance; remand for further proceedings in 2011 case
Whether Anderson is entitled to PCR relief for 2009 case	Anderson did not claim counsel’s alleged failures affected the 2009 conviction/sentence	State: no claim tying counsel error to 2009 outcome	Court: denied relief as to 2009 case
Whether the record conclusively shows the State would have withdrawn the earlier offer before plea acceptance	State: offer made at RCC/preliminary stage and would be withdrawn; court would defer acceptance	Anderson: offer was made at initial pretrial; record does not establish automatic withdrawal or deferral	Court: record does not clearly show the plea could not have been accepted before withdrawal; unresolved fact issue supports remand
Whether appellate court should consider additional issues Anderson raised late	Anderson raised other issues in PCR or reply	State: procedural default/untimeliness; superior court did not address them timely	Court: declined to consider issues not raised below or raised first in reply; no relief on those points

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 133 (2012) (to show prejudice for lost plea offer, defendant must show reasonable probability they would have accepted earlier offer and that outcome would have been more favorable)
State v. Donald, 198 Ariz. 406 (App. 2000) (counsel’s failure to advise on plea risks is a cognizable ineffective-assistance claim)
State v. D'Ambrosio, 156 Ariz. 71 (1988) (defendant presenting a colorable PCR claim is entitled to an evidentiary hearing)