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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

DEMETRIUS ANTWON WILSON, Petitioner. 

No. 1 CA-CR 18-0566 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2014-122610-001 

The Honorable Rosa Mroz, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Gerald R. Grant 

Counsel for Respondent 

Demetrius Antwon Wilson, Tucson

Petitioner

FILED 11-27-2018
STATE v. WILSON

Decision of the Court

2 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Paul J. McMurdie delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Jennifer B. Campbell and Judge Kent E. Cattani joined.

M c M U R D I E, Judge: 

¶1 Petitioner Demetrius Antwon Wilson petitions this court for 

review from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. We have 

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

but deny relief.

¶2 Wilson pled guilty to one count of burglary in the second 

degree, with one historical prior conviction. The superior court sentenced 

Wilson to a slightly aggravated term of ten years’ imprisonment but within 

the range stipulated in the plea agreement. 

¶3 Wilson waived his right to counsel in the Rule 32 proceeding 

and filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief. The superior court 

summarily denied the petition, and Wilson filed a timely petition for 

review. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal 

Procedure 32.9(c) and Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 

13-4239(C). 

¶4 On review, Wilson alleges various due process violations, 

arguing: (1) the superior court deprived him of the right to proceed pro se; 

(2) his medical issues impacted his ability to competently assist in his own 

defense; (3) the photographic lineup was unduly suggestive; and (4) law 

enforcement failed to adequately preserve evidence.

¶5 Whether to grant or deny post-conviction relief pursuant to 

Rule 32 is within the superior court’s discretion. State v. Schrock, 149 Ariz. 

433, 441 (1986). This court will not reverse the court’s decision absent an 

abuse of discretion. Id. 

¶6 The acceptance of a guilty plea waives all non-jurisdictional 

defenses, errors, and defects which occurred prior to the plea, including 

deprivations of constitutional rights. Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 

(1973); State v. Moreno, 134 Ariz. 199, 200 (App. 1982). Thus, a pleading 

defendant “may only attack the voluntary and intelligent character of the 

guilty plea.” Tollett, 411 U.S. at 267. To enter a plea agreement, a defendant 
STATE v. WILSON

Decision of the Court

3 

must understand and agree to the terms of the plea agreement, be advised 

of the constitutional rights waived by pleading guilty, and the plea cannot 

be the “result of force, threats or promises.” Ariz. R. Crim. P. 17.3(a)(1)–(2), 

17.4(c); State v. Murdaugh, 209 Ariz. 19, 27, ¶ 33 (2004). 

¶7 Here, the superior court explained each term of Wilson’s plea 

agreement, including the rights he waived by entering a guilty plea. 

Although Wilson suffered from symptoms associated with a colostomy

reversal, his medical issues did not impact his cognitive functions at either 

the settlement conference or the change of plea hearing. Moreover, the 

record shows that Wilson was cleared to return to court by Correctional 

Health Services. Under these facts, Wilson voluntarily and intelligently 

entered a plea agreement and waived his right to allege errors that may 

have occurred prior to the plea. See Murdaugh, 209 Ariz. at 27, ¶ 33. 

¶8 Lastly, Wilson contends that the superior court refused to 

provide complete transcripts and the State presented “false allegations” 

during the current proceeding. These claims are not supported by the 

record and do not merit relief.

¶9 The court did not abuse its discretion by summarily denying

Wilson’s petition for post-conviction relief. We therefore grant review, but 

deny relief.