State v. King, 1 CA-CR 15-0552-PRPC

Renetta King was convicted by a jury of two counts of sale of dangerous drugs and sentenced to an aggregate ten-year term; convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal.
King filed a petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) raising claims that her trial counsel had an irreconcilable conflict/failed to communicate and that her appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising a Confrontation Clause issue regarding recorded audio/video involving a confidential informant.
The superior court held a two-day evidentiary hearing, found against King, and denied PCR; King sought review in the Arizona Court of Appeals.
At the evidentiary hearing, trial counsel testified he communicated with King throughout trial (except when she refused to speak on the last day) and effectively represented her, including appearing by telephone at a pretrial hearing.
The superior court found appellate counsel’s performance was not shown to be deficient, and King failed to prove prejudice from appellate counsel’s decision not to raise the confrontation claim.
The Court of Appeals granted review but denied relief, concluding King failed to show the superior court’s factual findings were clearly erroneous or that appellate counsel was ineffective under Strickland.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether irreconcilable conflict / lack of communication with trial counsel denied effective assistance	King: severe/pervasive conflict and minimal contact deprived her of meaningful representation	State: trial counsel testified to ongoing communication and adequate representation; transcripts show counsel participated (telephonically) at hearing	Court: Superior court findings not clearly erroneous; no ineffective assistance shown; claim denied
Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising Confrontation Clause issue about recorded informant statements	King: appellate counsel erred by not appealing admission of recordings and informant statements, which violated Confrontation Clause	State: appellate counsel’s issue selection is presumptively reasonable; King did not show deficient performance or prejudice; the confrontation claim was unlikely to succeed because informant statements provided context, not testimonial	Court: Denied relief — King failed to satisfy Strickland (no showing of deficient performance or prejudice); confrontation claim not likely to succeed

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance: performance and prejudice)
Berryman v. State, 178 Ariz. 617 (App. 1994) (appellate standard for reviewing trial-court factual findings after an evidentiary hearing)
Swoopes v. State, 216 Ariz. 390 (App. 2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard for PCR rulings)
Valdez v. State, 167 Ariz. 328 (1991) (strong presumption that appellate counsel provided effective assistance)
Martin v. State, 225 Ariz. 162 (App. 2010) (informant statements providing context to defendant’s admissions are non‑testimonial)
Boggs v. State, 218 Ariz. 325 (2008) (videotaped interviewer statements during interrogation admissible for context)