State v. Jackson, 1 CA-CR 15-0673-PRPC

Anthony Jackson pleaded guilty in 2001 to second-degree murder and received an aggravated 18-year sentence.
In September 2015 Jackson filed his fifth petition for post-conviction relief under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(g), citing Alleyne v. United States as a significant change in the law.
Alleyne holds that any fact that increases a mandatory minimum must be found by a jury.
The trial court summarily dismissed Jackson’s petition, concluding Alleyne did not apply to his sentence because his sentence did not involve an increased mandatory minimum.
Jackson sought review of the dismissal and also raised (for the first time on review) an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim.
The appellate court granted review but denied relief, declining to consider the new counsel claim because it was not raised below.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Alleyne constitutes a significant change in law warranting relief	Alleyne requires jury findings for facts increasing mandatory penalties and thus applies to his sentence	Alleyne is inapplicable because Jackson’s sentence did not rely on an increased mandatory minimum	Alleyne does not apply; summary dismissal affirmed
Whether appellate court should consider an ineffective-assistance claim raised for first time on review	Jackson asserts counsel was ineffective and seeks consideration	State/trial court objects: issue was not presented below so it’s forfeited	Court refused to consider it because the claim was not raised in the trial court

Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (holding facts that increase mandatory minimums must be found by a jury)
State v. Bennett, 213 Ariz. 562 (2006) (standard of review for post-conviction relief rulings)
State v. Ramirez, 126 Ariz. 464 (1980) (issues on review must have been presented to the trial court)
State v. Smith, 184 Ariz. 456 (1996) (no appellate review for unpreserved fundamental error in post-conviction proceedings)