State v. Usher ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                      NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.
    UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.
    IN THE
    ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
    DIVISION ONE
    STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,
    v.
    ANDREW ANTHONY USHER, Petitioner.
    No. 1 CA-CR 14-0658 PRPC
    FILED 9-27-2016
    Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
    No. CR2008-009407-049
    The Honorable Roland J. Steinle, III, Judge, Retired
    REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
    COUNSEL
    Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix
    By Diane Meloche
    Counsel for Respondent
    Ballecer & Segal, LLP, Phoenix
    By Natalee E. Segal
    Counsel for Petitioner
    STATE v. USHER
    Decision of the Court
    MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen, Judge Jon W. Thompson and Chief
    Judge Michael J. Brown delivered the decision of the court.
    PER CURIAM:
    ¶1            Andrew Anthony Usher petitions this court for review from
    the dismissal of his successive post-conviction relief petition. Usher pled
    guilty to attempted possession of marijuana for sale in March 2010, and the
    superior court imposed probation. Usher argues his counsel was ineffective
    when he incorrectly advised Usher that his conviction would not affect
    Usher's immigration status. Usher argues he did not learn of the
    consequences of counsel's error until 2013, when deportation proceedings
    began.
    ¶2              Usher's claim is precluded because he could have raised it in
    his first petition for post-conviction relief. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a). Usher
    argues he did not know his lawyer had given him faulty advice until two
    years after he entered the plea. But his failure to realize that his lawyer had
    not properly advised him until deportation proceedings began is not a
    cognizable exception from preclusion under Rules 32.2(b) and 32.1(f)
    (defendant is without fault in failing to file a timely notice of post-
    conviction relief). State v. Poblete, 
    227 Ariz. 537
    , 539-40, ¶¶ 6-7 (App. 2011).
    ¶3            Accordingly, we grant review but deny relief.
    AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
    FILED: AA
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 1 CA-CR 14-0658-PRPC

Filed Date: 9/27/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021