State v. Baker, 1 CA-CR 14-0853-PRPC

Petitioner Kimmie Dwayne Baker was convicted by jury of third-degree burglary and theft; superior court imposed three years’ supervised probation and a 90-day jail term.
This court previously affirmed Baker’s convictions and disposition, vacating only a DNA-testing fee.
Baker filed a timely notice of post-conviction relief (PCR); appointed counsel found no arguable claims and Baker then filed a pro se PCR petition.
Baker’s PCR alleged ineffective assistance of appellate and PCR counsel and that the sentencing judge failed to file the presentence report (PSR) in the court record; Baker asserted the PSR contained exculpatory information about an incorrect police report number.
The superior court summarily dismissed the PCR, finding no colorable claim or newly discovered evidence sufficient for relief or an evidentiary hearing; Baker petitioned this court for review but limited his arguments to the PSR issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the sentencing judge’s failure to file the PSR (and an incorrect police report number in the PSR) constitutes newly discovered/exculpatory evidence warranting relief	Baker: The PSR (hidden from the record) showed the Tempe PD report number cited was for an impounded-vehicle case, not his investigation, and that is exculpatory/newly discovered	State/Superior Ct: The report-number error was known before trial and raised in a pretrial motion; petitioner offered no showing how it would change sentencing or appeal outcome	Court: Dismissal affirmed—error was not newly discovered and Baker failed to make a colorable showing that it affected the outcome
Whether Baker is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his PCR claims	Baker: The withheld PSR and report-number discrepancy justify an evidentiary hearing	State/Superior Ct: No colorable claim shown; no factual showing that alleged errors would change result	Court: No evidentiary hearing required because allegations, if true, would not have changed outcome
Whether appellate and PCR counsel were ineffective (raised in reply)	Baker: Counsel were ineffective (asserted in reply)	State: Issues not properly presented on petition for review	Court: Declined to address ineffective-assistance claims because Baker did not raise them in the petition for review

State v. Bennett, 213 Ariz. 562 (addresses standard of review for summary dismissal of PCR)
State v. Krum, 183 Ariz. 288 (describes requirement that petitioner make a colorable showing that alleged facts would change the outcome to obtain an evidentiary hearing)
State v. Watson, 198 Ariz. 48 (procedural requirement that issues be raised in the petition for review to be considered)