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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

FELIPE PETRONE CABANAS, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 21-0534 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR1999-006656

The Honorable Patricia A. Starr, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF GRANTED

COUNSEL

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

FILED 6-21-2022
STATE v. CABANAS

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Jennifer M. Perkins delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge David D. Weinzweig and Judge Brian Y. Furuya joined.

P E R K I N S, 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.
STATE v. CABANAS

Decision of the Court

3

¶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.