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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

JOSE TRINIDAD CECENA-COTA, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 13-0876 PRPC

FILED 5-21-2015

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2012-124952-001

The Honorable Roger E. Brodman, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Lisa Marie Martin

Counsel for Respondent

Jose Trinidad Cecena-Cota, Douglas

Petitioner
STATE v. CECENA-COTA

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Kenton D. Jones delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Margaret H. Downie and Judge Jon W. Thompson joined.

J O N E S, Judge:

¶1 Jose Trinidad Cecena-Cota petitions this Court for review of

the trial court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. We have 

considered the petition for review, and, for the reasons stated, grant review 

and deny relief. 

¶2 Cecena-Cota pleaded guilty to promoting prison contraband 

and misconduct involving weapons, and the trial court sentenced him to 

9.25 years’ imprisonment for the former charge, and two years’ probation 

for the latter. Cecena-Cota filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief 

of-right after his counsel found no colorable claim for relief. The trial court 

summarily dismissed the petition, and Cecena-Cota now seeks review. We 

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

¶3 Cecena-Cota argues there was an insufficient factual basis to 

support his guilty plea to the offense of promoting prison contraband. He 

further argues his trial counsel was ineffective by advising him to just 

answer “yes” to all of the trial court’s questions at the change-of-plea 

hearing, when counsel knew there was an insufficient factual basis to 

support the plea, and that he would have to lie to the court to do so.

¶4 We deny relief. The factual basis to support the plea need 

only establish strong evidence of guilt, not guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 

State v. Salinas, 181 Ariz. 104, 106 (1994) (citing State v. Wallace, 151 Ariz. 362, 

365 (1986)). As charged here, a person commits promoting prison 

contraband if the person “knowingly tak[es] contraband into a correctional 

facility or the grounds of a correctional facility.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-

2505(A)(1) (2015). At the change-of-plea hearing, Cecena-Cota admitted 

that when he was taken to the jail for booking on the weapons misconduct 

charge, he entered the facility knowing he had methamphetamine hidden 

in the hat he was wearing. This admission is sufficient to support CecenaCota’s guilty plea to promoting prison contraband. 

¶5 Because there was a sufficient factual basis for the plea, 

Cecena-Cota has failed to present a colorable claim that his counsel was 
STATE v. CECENA-COTA

Decision of the Court

3

ineffective. His claim is further undercut by the fact that, in addition to 

admitting the factual basis, Cecena-Cota told the trial court he agreed to 

everything in the plea agreement, no one forced him to enter into the 

agreement, no one made any promises or threats to convince him to plead 

guilty, and he entered the plea agreement of his own free will. 

¶6 While the petition for review presents an additional issue 

regarding the validity of State v. Hamilton, 142 Ariz. 91 (1984), Cecena-Cota 

did not raise this issue in the petition for post-conviction relief he filed in 

the trial court. A petitioner may not present issues raised for the first time 

in a petition for review. See State v. Ramirez, 126 Ariz. 464, 467 (App. 1980); 

Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii).

¶7 Accordingly, we grant review and deny relief.