State v. Smoots, 1 CA-CR 15-0644-PRPC

In 2012 Smoots was convicted by a jury of misconduct involving weapons (class 4 felony, repetitive offender) and sentenced to nine years.
On direct appeal this Court affirmed the conviction in an Anders review.
Smoots filed a 2014 petition for post-conviction relief claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The superior court summarily dismissed the petition; Smoots sought review.
Smoots’ post-conviction claims: (1) counsel failed to explain constructive-possession law; (2) counsel failed to explain plea-offer risks/benefits given his priors; (3) counsel failed to inform him of a ruling excluding evidence about a prior excessive-force incident.
Record facts: Smoots admitted knowing a gun was in his car, moved items near where the handgun was found, and told police the gun under his seat belonged to a friend; the State sought to prove two recent felony priors at trial in sanitized form.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for not adequately explaining constructive possession	Smoots: counsel failed to explain constructive-possession doctrine, undermining his decision to go to trial	State: record shows admissions placing gun in Smoots’ car and shifting items; counsel’s performance not deficient and no prejudice	Court: No deficient performance or prejudice; claim fails
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to explain plea offer consequences given priors	Smoots: counsel did not adequately advise plea vs trial exposure considering prior convictions	State: Smoots was informed at settlement conference of plea offer, sentencing range, and that priors would be proved; Smoots rejected the offer knowingly	Court: No ineffective assistance; Smoots made an informed decision and cannot show prejudice
Whether counsel was ineffective for not informing Smoots of exclusion of evidence about a prior excessive-force incident	Smoots: counsel did not preserve or investigate evidence about a 2009 incident that could have been used in his defense	State: issue was discussed at conference and defense sought to elicit the incident at trial but the court sustained relevance objections	Court: No prejudice shown; no reason to believe a motion or more investigation would have changed the ruling

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedure for appellate counsel to state no meritorious issues)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance standard: performance and prejudice)
Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (difficulty of overcoming Strickland standard)
State v. Donald, 198 Ariz. 406 (App. 2000) (ineffective assistance causing rejection of a plea is a cognizable claim)
State v. Rosario, 195 Ariz. 264 (App. 1999) (burden on petitioner to prove ineffective assistance by provable reality)
State v. Watton, 164 Ariz. 323 (1990) (standard for reviewing summary dismissals of post-conviction petitions)