Opinion
1 CA-CR 21-0534 PRPC
06-21-2022
STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. FELIPE PETRONE CABANAS, Petitioner.
Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Julie A. Done, John Schneider Counsel for Respondent Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, Phoenix By Kevin D. Heade, Mikel Steinfeld Counsel for Petitioner Arizona Justice Project, Phoenix By Karen S. Smith, Randal McDonald Counsel for Amicus Curiae Arizona Justice Project
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR1999-006656 The Honorable Patricia A. Starr, Judge
Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Julie A. Done, John Schneider Counsel for Respondent
Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, Phoenix By Kevin D. Heade, Mikel Steinfeld Counsel for Petitioner
Arizona Justice Project, Phoenix By Karen S. Smith, Randal McDonald Counsel for Amicus Curiae Arizona Justice Project
Judge Jennifer M. Perkins delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge David D. Weinzweig and Judge Brian Y. Furuya joined.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
PERKINS, Judge:
¶1 Felipe Petrone Cabanas petitions for review of the superior court's summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. For the following reasons, we grant review and relief, and we remand for an evidentiary hearing as provided by State v. Valencia, 241 Ariz. 206 (2016).
¶2 In 2001, Cabanas pled guilty to the first-degree murder of a police officer, an offense he committed at age 17. The superior court imposed a term of natural life in prison without the possibility of release.
¶3 Following the United States Supreme Court opinion in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), Cabanas petitioned for post-conviction relief, challenging the constitutionality of his natural life sentence. In denying relief, the superior court found that Cabanas's sentence did not violate Miller because the sentence was not mandatory and the sentencing judge considered his age as a mitigating factor. We reversed that ruling and concluded that Valencia required an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the crime reflected transient immaturity, entitling Cabanas to resentencing under Miller. See State v. Cabanas, 1 CA-CR 15-0660, 2017 WL 3599595, at *2, ¶¶ 8-9 (Ariz. App. Aug. 22, 2017) (mem. decision).
¶4 On remand, the superior court expanded the evidentiary hearing's scope to include reconstruction of the evidence presented at sentencing. Cabanas objected to reconstruction of the sentencing record and sought special action review. As relevant here, we directed the superior court "to decide the material issue presently before it: whether Cabanas' crime reflected transient immaturity or irreparable corruption. It is not tasked with deciding whether the previous sentence should stand, nor may it base its decision on considerations by the previous sentencing judge." See Cabanas v. Pineda, 246 Ariz. 12, 20, ¶ 30 (App. 2018). Once again, we granted relief and remanded for an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Valencia. Id. at 20-21, ¶¶ 32-34.
¶5 Before the superior court held the evidentiary hearing, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Jones v. Mississippi, 141 S.Ct. 1307 (2021), and the State moved to vacate the hearing and dismiss Cabanas's petition. The superior court granted the State's motion and summarily dismissed Cabanas's petition. The court found the basis for our mandate no longer existed because Jones implicitly overruled Valencia, and the current law no longer required an evidentiary hearing. Cabanas's timely petition for review followed.
¶6 We recently held in State v. Wagner, 1 CA-CR 21-0492, 2022 WL 1463719, at *4-5, ¶¶ 20-21 (Ariz. App. May 10, 2022), that Jones neither modified nor implicitly overruled Valencia's application of Miller. In Wagner, we granted relief and remanded for an evidentiary hearing consistent with Valencia. Id. at *1, ¶ 1. Because this case's procedural background and circumstances are similar, we find Wagner dispositive and need not further address the parties' arguments. As we have mandated twice before, we direct the superior court to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the crime reflected transient immaturity in accordance with Valencia.
¶7 We vacate the superior court's dismissal of Cabanas's petition for post-conviction relief and remand for further proceedings consistent with this decision.