State v. Wyatt, 1 CA-CR 16-0025-PRPC

Petitioner Bo Daniel Wyatt pled guilty in two consolidated matters: (1) attempt to commit production of marijuana (placed on 3 years’ probation) and (2) endangerment (1 year imprisonment) and possession/use of marijuana (3 years’ probation); sentencing/probation ordered to run concurrently.
Wyatt filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to assert defenses under the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (AMMA), rendering his pleas involuntary.
The AMMA included a short-lived affirmative defense provision, A.R.S. § 36-2812 (effective Dec 2010 until repeal in April 2011), and an immunity/presumption provision, A.R.S. § 36-2811 (registry card–based), both relevant to defenses for marijuana offenses.
Facts: first offense (Feb 21, 2011) — six marijuana plants found in Wyatt’s bedroom; physician had recommended medical marijuana on Feb 1, 2011 but state registry cards were not yet issued.
Facts: second offense (May 15, 2011) — vehicle chase and marijuana found in the vehicle; Department had begun issuing registry cards and Wyatt’s application was approved on May 5, 2011, but he had not yet received the physical card at the time of arrest.
The superior court held an evidentiary hearing, found Wyatt’s claims were colorable, but ultimately denied relief; the Court of Appeals granted review and denied relief.

Issue	Wyatt’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective in the first case for not asserting the AMMA affirmative defense (A.R.S. § 36-2812)	Wyatt: physician’s written recommendation (Feb 1) satisfied the AMMA interim affirmative defense for possession/production on Feb 21, 2011	Counsel: § 36-2812 required marijuana be in an "enclosed, locked facility"; bedroom wasn’t such a facility, door unlocked, mother had access, and Wyatt told counsel plants belonged to his mother	Denied — counsel’s decision was reasonable given facts known to counsel; no deficient performance and plea was voluntary
Whether counsel was ineffective in the second case for not asserting the AMMA registry-based presumption/immunity (A.R.S. § 36-2811)	Wyatt: had an approved application (approval May 5) and thus should have had a defense to possession/use when arrested May 15, 2011	Counsel: Wyatt did not possess or constructively possess the registry card at arrest; mere application or approval without the card was not a viable defense; Wyatt never told counsel he had the card	Denied — counsel reasonably concluded § 36-2811 did not apply because Wyatt lacked the actual/constructive registry card at arrest; plea was voluntary

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Nash, 143 Ariz. 392 (1985) (application of Strickland in Arizona)
State v. Pandeli, 242 Ariz. 175 (2017) (deference to reasonable trial strategy in ineffective assistance claims)
State v. Sasak, 178 Ariz. 182 (App. 1993) (appellate review of superior court rulings after evidentiary hearing — substantial evidence standard)
State v. Robinson, 153 Ariz. 191 (1987) (appellate affirmance may rest on any record-supported basis)
State v. Gear, 239 Ariz. 343 (2016) (background on AMMA enactment)
State v. Liwski, 238 Ariz. 184 (App. 2015) (description of § 36-2812 interim affirmative defense)
Reed-Kaliher v. Hoggatt, 237 Ariz. 119 (2015) (describing § 36-2811 as the AMMA immunity/presumption provision)