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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

ROBERT ANDERSON, 

Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 20-0025 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2016-124242-001

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 10-1-2020
STATE v. ANDERSON

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, 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 petition 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 police officers responded 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 court granted Anderson’s motion to dismiss 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 sentences 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), “judicial 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 Anderson failed to raise a material issue of 

1 Effective January 1, 2020, the Arizona Supreme Court 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 this 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 (App. 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 to 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. By pleading guilty,

however, Anderson waived claims relating to the search and seizure. See 

State v. Reed, 121 Ariz. 547, 548 (App. 1979) (plea agreement waives all nonjurisdictional defenses, errors and defects which occurred before the plea); 

see also Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973) (waiver of nonjurisdictional 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. By 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, although Anderson briefly mentioned IAC

generally in his Rule 33 petition, he did not raise this specific claim. Ariz. R. 

Crim. P. 33.16(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 proceeding).

¶9 Anderson also refers to issues 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 those 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.