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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE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 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA
, Respondent
,

v.

ROBERT ANDERSON
, Petitioner

.
No. 1 CA

- CR 20

- 0025 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR 2016

- 124242

- 001 The Honorable Mark H. Brain
, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL
Maricopa County Attorney’ s Office , Phoenix By Amanda M. Parker Counsel for Respondent

Robert George Anderson
, San Luis Petitioner FILED 10-1-2020STATE v. ANDERSON Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the C ourt , in which Judge D. Steven Williams and Judge David D. Weinzweig joined.

T H U M M A, Judge :

¶1 Robert George Anderson petitions this court for review from the dismissal of his peti tion for post

- conviction relief, filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 ( 2020 ). 1 Having considered the petition, the court grants review but denies relief

. ¶2 Phoenix p olice officers respond ed to a burglary in progress at

a United States government building and apprehended Anderson as he fled

. In Anderson’s nearby vehicle, police found burglary tools and methamphetamine in a pill bottle. The State charged Anderson with burglary , possession of burglary tools and possession or use of dangerous drugs. Because the incident occurred on property under federal jurisdiction , the c ourt granted Anderson’s motion to dis miss the burglary and possession of burglary tools charges.

¶3 Anderson then pled guilty to the drug charge

. He was sentenced to a stipulated presumptive term of 2.5 years’ imprisonment to run concurrently with his sentences in another criminal matter

. See State v. Anderson , 1 CA

- CR 18

- 0565, 2019 WL 3959454 (Ariz. App. Aug. 22, 2019) (mem. decision) (affirming convictions and senten ces in the other criminal
matter ).

¶4 Anderson timely petitioned for post

- conviction relief

. He challenged the court’s jurisdiction, and he raised claims related to the police search of his vehicle
, newly discovered evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC)
, “j ud icial bias and conflict of interest,” prosecutorial misconduct, the State’s purported violation of its disclosure obligations, and “ the denial of the procurement of transcripts

. ” The court summarily dismissed the petition , finding Anders on failed to raise a material issue of

1 Effective January 1, 2020, the Arizona S upreme C ourt amended the post

- conviction relief rules. Because there were no substantive changes to the respective rules related to this decision, this decision applies and cites the current rules.STATE v. ANDERSON Decision of the Court

3 fact or law

. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 33.11(a) ; see also State v. Amaral , 239 Ariz. 217, 220 ¶ 11 (2016) ( “ If the alleged facts would not have probably changed the verdict or sentence, then the claim is subject to summary dismissal.”) ; State v. D’Ambrosio , 156 Ariz. 71, 73 (1988) (a PCR petitioner must present a colorable claim to be entitled to an evidentiary hearing )

. ¶5 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will not disturb the superior court’s ruling on a petition for post

- conviction relief. State v. Gutierrez , 229 Ariz. 573, 577 ¶ 19 (2012) ; State v. Poblete , 227 Ariz. 537, 538 ¶ 1 (App. 2011). Anderson has failed to show error.

¶6 Anderson first appears to argue that the federal government’s exclusive jurisdiction over the property supports dismissal of the drug charge. He claims that when police officers found drugs in his truck, they knew the State lacked jurisdiction over the property. Thus, Anderson

reasons, the seizure of the drugs was unlawful. The question of federal jurisdiction in thi s case, however, was litigated and resolved before Anderson pled guilty

. ¶7 Even assuming the officers knew about the federal government’s exclusive jurisdiction, such knowledge did not mean the search of Anderson’s vehicle and resulting seizure of the drugs inside it was improper

. See

, e.g. , State v. Paxton , 186 Ariz. 580, 584 (A pp. 1996) (“Evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment need not be suppressed when that evidence would inevitably have been discovered by lawful means.”)

. Anderson does not argue, or cite authority , to the contrary. Thus, Anderson’s challenge t o the drug charge is not, as he suggests, based on the superior court’s purported lack of jurisdiction . Instead, it rests on Fourth Amendment principles. See U.S. Const. amend. IV

. B y pleading guilty, however, Anderson waived clai m s relating to the search and seizure

. See State v. Reed , 121 Ariz. 547, 548 (App. 1979) ( plea agreement waives all non

jurisdictional defenses, errors and defects which occurred before the plea ) ; see also Tollett v. Henderson , 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973) (waiver of non

jurisdi ctional defects includes deprivation of constitutional rights )

. ¶8 Anderson next contends his appointed counsel was ineffective for , among other things, failing to include the drug charge in the motion to dismiss. B y pleading guilty, Anderson waived IAC claims that do not directly relate to the validity of his plea. State v. Quick , 177 Ariz. 314, 316 (App. 1994)

. Moreover, a lthough Anderson briefly mentioned IAC generally in his Rule 33 petition
, he did not raise this specific claim

. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 3 3

. 16 (c)( 2 )(B); State v. Ramirez , 126 Ariz. 464, 468 (App. 1980); see State v. Smith , 184 Ariz. 456, 459 (1996); State v. Swoopes , 216 Ariz. 390, 403,STATE v. ANDERSON Decision of the Court

4 ¶ ¶ 40

– 41 (App. 2007) (both holding there is no review for fundamental error in a post

- conviction relief pro ceeding)

. ¶9 Anderson also refers to issue s of judicial bias and prosecutorial misconduct that this court addressed in his other criminal
matter and found no error

. Anderson , 2019 WL 3959454 at *2

- 3, ¶¶ 7

- 15. Accordingly, whatever relationship th o se issues have to the PCR proceeding in this case, they do not entitle Anderson to relief.

¶10 Because Anderson has shown no error, the court grants review but denies relief.