State v. Crockett, 1 CA-CR 14-0723-PRPC

Charles Taylor Crockett was convicted by jury of seven felonies and two misdemeanors for participating in a home invasion; convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal.
Crockett filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel on two grounds: (1) failure to move to sever a misconduct involving weapons charge from other counts, and (2) failure to strike two prospective jurors for cause.
The trial court had given a cautionary instruction requiring the jury to consider each count separately and had "sanitized" evidence of Crockett’s priors so jurors only knew of two unspecified prior felonies; the weapons charge and related evidence received only brief mention in closing argument.
One prospective juror disclosed she is emotionally expressive but assured the court emotion would not affect her ability to be fair; the other disclosed an elderly aunt had suffered a home invasion 16 years earlier but also assured the court of impartiality.
The superior court summarily dismissed Crockett’s petition for failing to state a colorable ineffective-assistance claim; Crockett sought review, which this Court granted and then denied relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Crockett)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for not moving to sever the weapons charge	Failure to sever allowed prejudicial spillover that could have influenced verdicts	No prejudice: court instructed jury to consider each count separately and evidence of priors/weapons was limited	Denied — no colorable claim of prejudice because of separate-count instruction and limited evidence exposure
Whether counsel was ineffective for not striking two prospective jurors for cause	Jurors were biased or incapable of impartiality due to emotional nature and prior victimization in family	Juror assurances of impartiality were credible; Crockett offers only speculation of bias	Denied — speculation insufficient to show juror bias or a colorable ineffective-assistance claim
Whether petitioner pleaded facts entitling him to an evidentiary hearing	Alleged counsel errors warrant an evidentiary hearing to prove prejudice	Hearing required only if alleged facts, if true, would probably have changed verdict or sentence	Denied — petitioner failed to allege facts that would probably have changed the outcome
Standard for prejudice in post-conviction ineffective-assistance claims	N/A (argues prejudice occurred)	N/A (relies on established standard)	Applied standard: petitioner must allege facts that would probably have changed verdict or sentence; mere speculation insufficient

State v. D’Ambrosio, 156 Ariz. 71, 750 P.2d 14 (establishes entitlement to evidentiary hearing for colorable ineffective-assistance claims)
State v. Amaral, 239 Ariz. 217, 368 P.3d 925 (prejudice inquiry: facts alleged must probably have changed verdict or sentence)
State v. Johnson, 212 Ariz. 425, 133 P.3d 735 (no prejudice from joinder when jury is instructed to consider each offense separately)
State v. Dunlap, 187 Ariz. 441, 930 P.2d 518 (presumption that juries follow instructions)
State v. Rosario, 195 Ariz. 264, 987 P.2d 226 (mere speculation about juror bias does not state a colorable claim)