NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE

LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

v.

DONNA MARIE MAYO, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 13-0201 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2010-164376-001

The Honorable Peter C. Reinstein, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By E. Catherine Leisch

Counsel for Respondent

Donna Marie Mayo, Goodyear

Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Chief Judge Diane M. Johnsen delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Presiding Judge Jon Thompson and Judge Kenton D. Jones joined.
STATE v. MAYO

Decision of the Court

2

J O H N S E N, Chief Judge:

¶1 Donna Marie Mayo petitions this court for review from the 

dismissal of her petition for post-conviction relief. After considering the 

petition for review, the court grants review and denies relief.

¶2 Mayo pled guilty to possession or use of dangerous drugs 

and the trial court sentenced her to a presumptive term of 2.5 years'

imprisonment. Mayo filed a pro per petition for post-conviction relief ofright after her counsel found no colorable claims for relief. The superior

court summarily dismissed the petition, and Mayo now seeks review. We 

have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.9(c). 

¶3 Mayo first argues the police conducted an illegal warrantless 

search of her residence. Mayo waived this issue when she pled guilty. A 

plea agreement waives all non-jurisdictional defenses, errors and defects 

that occurred prior to the plea. State v. Moreno, 134 Ariz. 199, 200, 655 P.2d 

23, 24 (App. 1982), abrogated on other grounds, State ex rel. Dean v. Dolhy, 161 

Ariz. 297, 299, 778 P.2d 1193, 1195 (1989). The waiver of non-jurisdictional 

defects includes deprivations of constitutional rights. Tollett v. Henderson, 

411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973).

¶4 Mayo next presents several claims of ineffective assistance of 

counsel. To state a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a 

defendant must show that counsel's performance fell below objectively 

reasonable standards and that the deficient performance prejudiced the 

defendant. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); State v. Nash, 

143 Ariz. 392, 397 (1985). To show prejudice, a defendant must show that 

there is a "reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional 

errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Strickland, 

466 U.S at 669. 

¶5 Mayo argues her trial counsel was ineffective when she 

failed to file a motion to suppress evidence seized during a search of 

Mayo's residence and otherwise failed to investigate or litigate this alleged 

violation of Mayo's rights. Mayo offers no legal argument in her petition 

for review to support that contention. In her petition to the superior court, 

she argued the search was performed without a search warrant, but the 

record indicates officers had a warrant to search the home. Mayo also 

contends her lawyer failed to investigate alleged discrepancies in the 

police reports, but she does not provide copies of those reports. Finally, 

Mayo argues her counsel was ineffective when she failed to submit copies 

of records that proved Mayo had a prescription for the drugs found in her 
STATE v. MAYO

Decision of the Court

3

possession. We deny relief on this issue because Mayo pled guilty to the 

charged offense based on her possession of methamphetamine, not 

prescription drugs. 

¶6 For the reasons stated above, the court grants review and 

denies relief.