State v. Warner, 1 CA-CR 15-0616-PRPC

Petitioner Thomas Warner pled guilty to one count of sexual exploitation of a minor and two counts of attempted sexual exploitation of a minor based on his admitted possession of images of children under 15 engaged in sexual conduct.
Warner was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment for sexual exploitation (minimum sentence) and lifetime probation on the two attempted counts.
Warner timely filed a petition for post-conviction relief of-right; the trial court summarily dismissed the petition under Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.6(c).
Warner sought review arguing (1) prosecutorial misconduct in grand jury proceedings, (2) the offenses are not dangerous crimes against children because there were no actual victims, (3) uninvestigated or newly discovered mental-health defenses, and (4) coercion/conspiracy/bias by counsel and the court.
The trial court limited its ruling to issues raised in Warner’s petition; Warner raised additional issues in later replies which the court did not address.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Warner)	Defendant's Argument (State/Respondent)	Held
Prosecutorial misconduct in grand jury	Prosecutors committed misconduct during grand jury proceedings	Waived by guilty plea; non-jurisdictional claims forfeited	Waived; relief denied
Whether offenses qualify as dangerous crimes against children	Not dangerous because there were no actual victims	Statutory definition covers visual depictions of minors under 15; offense qualifies	Offenses are dangerous crimes against children; conviction stands
Mental-health defenses / ineffective investigation / newly discovered evidence	Warner has mental-health issues that could constitute defenses or mitigation; counsel failed to investigate	Warner presented no evidence of mental-health conditions or their legal effect; arguments not developed on review	Denied for lack of evidentiary support and for failing to properly brief issues on review
Coercion by counsel, conspiracy, and judicial bias	Plea was coerced; State, defense counsel, and court conspired; judge biased	Issues were not raised in the petition below; procedural default bars review	Denied for procedural default; trial court did not consider these claims

State v. D’Ambrosio, 156 Ariz. 71 (1988) (trial court has discretion to decide whether a Rule 32 petition presents a colorable claim)
State v. Watton, 164 Ariz. 323 (1990) (appellate reversal of summary dismissal requires affirmative showing of abuse of discretion)
State v. Moreno, 134 Ariz. 199 (1982) (guilty plea waives non-jurisdictional defenses and errors)
Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258 (1973) (guilty plea waives certain constitutional claims arising before the plea)
State v. Rodriguez, 227 Ariz. 58 (App.) (2011) (court may decline to address arguments not properly presented in petition)
State v. Bortz, 169 Ariz. 575 (1991) (issues not presented to trial court in post-conviction proceedings generally not reviewable on appeal)
State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390 (App.) (2007) (no review for fundamental error in post-conviction relief proceedings)