NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

MICHAEL PAUL JESSUP, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 13-0616 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR 1998-091417

The Honorable Bruce R. Cohen, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Diane Meloche

Counsel for Respondent

Michael Paul Jessup, Florence

Petitioner

Arizona Justice Project, Phoenix

By Stacey F. Gottlieb

Amicus Curiae
STATE v. JESSUP

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Patricia A. Orozco and Judge Michael J. Brown joined 

T H U M M A, Judge:

¶1 Petitioner Michael Paul Jessup seeks review of the superior 

court’s order summarily dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief, 

filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1 (2015).1 Absent 

an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will not disturb a superior 

court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief. State v. Gutierrez, 229 

Ariz. 573, 577 ¶ 19, 278 P.3d 1276, 1280 (2012). Finding no such error, this 

court grants review but denies relief.

¶2 Jessup pled guilty to first degree murder and armed robbery, 

having committed the offenses in 1998 when he was 17 years old. The 

superior court sentenced Jessup to prison for natural life for murder and a 

consecutive term of 18 years in prison for armed robbery. Jessup seeks 

review of the summary dismissal of the notice of his second petition for 

post-conviction relief. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Rule 

of Criminal Procedure 32.9(c).

¶3 Jessup contends Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012) 

constitutes a significant change in the law that required the superior court 

to vacate his sentence to natural life. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.1(g) (significant 

change in law is ground for post-conviction relief); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b) 

(rule of preclusion does not apply to claims based on Rule 32.1(g)). Miller

held “that mandatory life [sentences] without parole for those under the 

age of 18 at the time of their crimes violates the Eighth amendment’s 

prohibition on ‘cruel and unusual punishments.’” 132 S. Ct. at 2460. Miller

also held a court may sentence a juvenile offender convicted of murder to 

life imprisonment without the possibility of parole so long as the court takes 

into account “how children are different, and how those differences counsel 

against irrevocably sentencing them to a lifetime in prison.” Id. at 2469.

 

1 Absent material revisions after the relevant dates, statutes and rules cited 

refer to the current version unless otherwise indicated.
STATE v. JESSUP

Decision of the Court

3

¶4 Assuming arguendo that Miller applies retroactively, Jessup 

has not shown an entitlement to relief. Miller prohibits mandatory life 

sentences without the possibility of parole for juvenile offenders. Id. at 2460.

Jessup’s sentence to natural life was not mandatory. The superior court 

noted at sentencing that it had the option to sentence Jessup either to 

natural life or life with a possibility of release after 25 years’ imprisonment. 

See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(A) (1999). In considering the appropriate 

sentence, the superior court found Jessup’s age to be one of several 

mitigating factors. The court also heard from a psychologist regarding his 

presentence evaluation of Jessup as a juvenile offender. Among other 

opinions, the psychologist did not believe Jessup’s aggressive activity 

would extend into adulthood and his appreciation of the wrongfulness of 

his acts would increase with age. The psychologist further noted that 

adolescents do not have the same kind of judgment as adults. In short, the 

superior court considered “how children are different” and Jessup’s 

sentence to natural life complied with Miller. 
STATE v. JESSUP

Decision of the Court

4

¶5 While the petition for review with this court presents 

additional issues, Jessup did not raise those issues in the petition for postconviction relief filed with the superior court. A petition for review with 

this court may not present issues the petitioner did not first present to the 

superior court. State v. Ramirez, 126 Ariz. 464, 467, 616 P.2d 924, 927 (App. 

1980); State v. Wagstaff, 161 Ariz. 66, 71, 775 P.2d 1130, 1135 (App. 1988); 

State v. Bortz, 169 Ariz. 575, 577, 821 P.2d 236, 238 (App. 1991); Ariz. R. Crim. 

P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii). Accordingly, this court declines to address those additional 

issues.2

¶6 For these reasons, this court grants review but denies relief.

 

2 This court also declines to address issues and arguments Jessup himself 

did not present but that are contained in the amicus briefs filed in this court

and with the superior court. See Town of Chino Valley v. City of Prescott, 131 

Ariz. 78, 84, 638 P.2d 1324, 1330 (1981) (amici curiae may not create, extend 

or enlarge issues).