State v. Platt
| Decision Date | 22 June 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. 1 CA-CR 15-0749 PRPC,1 CA-CR 15-0749 PRPC |
| Parties | STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. THOMAS PLATT, Petitioner. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.
The Honorable Teresa A. Sanders, Judge
Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix
By Lisa Marie Martin
Thomas Platt, Eloy
Petitioner
MEMORANDUM DECISIONJudge Paul J. McMurdie delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Kent E. Cattani and Judge Jon W. Thompson joined.
¶1 Petitioner Thomas Platt seeks review of the trial court's dismissal of Platt's petition for post-conviction relief. "We will not disturb a trial court's ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief absent a clear abuse of discretion." State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390, 393, ¶ 4 (App. 2007). We have considered the petition for review and find Platt has not sustained his burden of establishing such abuse here. Therefore, we grant review but deny relief.
¶2 In 2013, Platt was charged with committing two counts of armed robbery and aggravated assault, unlawful flight from law enforcement, shoplifting, and misconduct involving weapons. Platt pled guilty to both counts of armed robbery as dangerous, non-repetitive offenses, and both counts of aggravated assault, unlawful flight from law enforcement, and misconduct involving weapons as non-dangerous, non-repetitive offenses. In 2014, the court sentenced Platt to an aggregate term of 14 years' imprisonment to be followed by a three-year probation tail.
¶3 Platt filed an "of right" notice for post-conviction relief within 90 days of sentencing and appointed counsel subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief. Appointed counsel moved to withdraw because Platt wished to raise additional issues that counsel did not deem cognizable. The court granted counsel's motion and Platt filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief. Platt's petition argued: (1) illegal sentencing based on multiple punishment; (2) newly discovered evidence presumably based on Platt's allegation that there is video surveillance which he claims trial counsel did not obtain, as well as Platt's psychological status at the time of the commission of the crime and when Platt entered the plea; (3) ineffective assistance of counsel for: (a) failing to comply with Platt's requests; (b) failing to request, send, and evaluate evidence pertaining to a surveillance video and his medical records; (c) failing to adequately prepare and presentmitigation; (d) failing to follow the rules of procedure by failing to engage in a settlement conference; (e) allowing Platt to be subjected to an illegal sentence; and (f) advising Platt to lie on the record.
¶4 In its response, the State conceded, pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") section 13-116, the three-year grants of probation imposed for the two aggravated assault charges should be vacated. Ultimately, in September 2015, the trial court dismissed those two counts. Regarding all other claims raised by Platt, the court found that he had failed to raise a colorable claim for relief and therefore, summarily dismissed the remaining claims pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.6(c).
¶5 More than a week following the dismissal of Platt's petition for post-conviction relief, Platt filed a motion requesting that the court order the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office ("MCSO") to release Platt's medical records to Platt to support his claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The superior court, in a minute entry dated October 21, 2015, granted Platt's motion stating that Platt "may obtain copies of his own medical file." Approximately two months after his first motion, Platt filed another motion for his MCSO medical records and the court granted this request again, in a minute entry dated December 18, 2015, stating that Platt "may obtain a copy of his own medical file." Platt's petition for review followed.
¶6 Platt renews his claims from below in addition to alluding to a claim of ineffective assistance of post-conviction relief counsel. Platt argues that the trial court's dismissal of counts 3 and 4 was an inadequate remedy for his multiple punishment claim, and instead the trial court should have held an evidentiary hearing. In this case, a hearing was unnecessary because the issue was rendered moot when the trial court granted the State's motion to dismiss those counts.
¶7 Regarding Platt's claims of newly discovered evidence, "simply because [a] defendant presents the court with evidence for the first time does not mean that such evidence is 'newly discovered.'" State v. Mata, 185 Ariz. 319, 333 (1996). "Newly-discovered material facts alleged as grounds for post-conviction relief are facts which come to light after the trial and which could not have been discovered and produced at trial through reasonable diligence." State v. Dogan, 150 Ariz. 595, 600 (App. 1986) (emphasis added). The evidence which Platt argues is newly discovered, does not appear to be so. At sentencing, trial counsel acknowledged Platt's mentalhealth condition, that he took medication for the condition, and counsel confirmed his belief that Platt understood the proceedings. Trial counsel further assured the court Platt was not an appropriate defendant for Rule 11 proceedings.
¶8 At sentencing, Platt told the court that he was in a "substance induced psychoses" at the time of the armed robbery but also eloquently provided a factual basis for his admission of guilt while expressing remorse. On review, Platt refers to his mental state at the time he committed the offenses to which he pled guilty and during the time he entered the plea claiming that his plea was not knowing, intelligent, or voluntary, and further, that he lacked the requisite mental state to commit the crimes. The medical records he proffers on review were not submitted to the trial court. They were obtained, by motion, after the petition for post-conviction relief was denied.
¶9 A petition for review may not present issues not first presented to the trial court. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii); State v. Ramirez, 126 Ariz. 464, 468 (App. 1980); State v. Wagstaff, 161 Ariz. 66, 71 (App. 1988); State v. Bortz, 169 Ariz. 575, 577-78 (App. 1991); see State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390, 403, ¶ 41 (App. 2007); State v. Smith, 184 Ariz. 456, 459 (1996) (). The reviewing court will not consider issues not first presented to the trial court. Wagstaff, 161 Ariz. at 71. A petition for review may not present issues through mere incorporation by reference and must state "the issues which were decided by the trial court and which the defendant wishes to present to the appellate court for review." Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii); State v. Rodriguez, 227 Ariz. 58, 61, ¶ 12, n.4 (App. 2010) (declining to address argument not presented in petition).
¶10 Further, a plea agreement waives all non-jurisdictional defenses, errors, and defects which occurred prior to the plea. State v. Moreno, 134 Ariz. 199, 200 (App. 1982). The waiver of non-jurisdictional defects includes deprivations of constitutional rights, Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973), and all claims of ineffective assistance of counsel not directly related to the entry of the plea. State v. Quick, 177 Ariz. 314, 316 (App. 1994). "When a criminal defendant has solemnly admitted in open court that he is in fact guilty of the offense with which he is charged, he may not thereafter raise independent claims relating to the deprivation of constitutional rights that occurred prior to the entry of the guilty plea." Tollett, 411 U.S. at 267. Further, claims regarding the voluntariness of a plea are meritless if the record shows the trial court question...
To continue reading
Request your trial