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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

MICHAEL DAVID CHAMBERS, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 15-0015 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2011-007992-001

The Honorable Carolyn K. Passamonte, Judge Pro Tempore

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Susan L. Luder

Counsel for Respondent

Michael David Chambers, Phoenix

Petitioner Pro Se

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Margaret H. Downie delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen and Judge James P. Beene joined.
STATE v. CHAMBERS

Decision of the Court

2

D O W N I E, Judge:

¶1 Michael David Chambers petitions for review from the 

superior court’s summary dismissal of his first petition for post-conviction 

relief. For the following reasons, we grant review but deny relief. 

¶2 A jury found Chambers guilty of failure to register change of 

address as a sex offender. He was sentenced to 4.5 years’ imprisonment, 

and this Court subsequently affirmed his conviction and sentence on direct 

appeal. 

¶3 Chambers argues the superior court erred by: (1) admitting 

admissions he made to investigators without Miranda warnings; (2) 

admitting perjured testimony; (3) incorrectly instructing the jury; and (4) 

permitting jurors to possess cell phones during deliberations. Chambers 

also argues the evidence was insufficient to establish his guilt.1 We deny 

relief on these issues because Chambers could have raised them on direct 

appeal. Any claim a defendant could have raised on direct appeal is 

precluded. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a). None of the exceptions set forth in 

Rule 32.2(b) apply here. 

¶4 Chambers also contends his trial counsel was ineffective by 

failing to move for a new trial pursuant to Rule 24.1(c)(3). Defense counsel 

instead filed a motion for new trial based on Rule 24.1(c)(5), which provides 

that the court may grant a new trial for any reason not otherwise identified 

in Rule 24.1(c) that resulted in the denial of a fair and impartial trial. The 

motion for new trial asserted that: jurors coerced, intimidated, 

misinformed, belittled, and pressured juror number 3 to return a guilty 

verdict; two jurors used cell phones to send texts or emails while in the jury 

room; and some jurors considered the underlying sexual offense as 

evidence of Chambers’ guilt, notwithstanding a limiting instruction. 

Rather than relying on Rule 24.1(c)(3), which permits a new trial based on 

juror misconduct, the motion cited the more general provisions of Rule 

24.1(c)(5). Chambers argues this constituted ineffective assistance of 

counsel.

¶5 Rule 24.1(c)(3) permits a new trial based on six specified types 

of juror misconduct. None of the juror-based allegations set forth in the 

motion for new trial fall within the six identified categories. Under these 

circumstances, the defense attorney’s reliance on Rule 24.1(c)(5) did not 

 

1 Chambers raised additional issues in the superior court that he does 

not present for review.
STATE v. CHAMBERS

Decision of the Court

3

constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. Furthermore, the superior court 

did not deny the motion for new trial because it cited the incorrect 

subsection of Rule 24.1. The court instead denied the motion on the merits, 

concluding, in pertinent part:

The Court finds Defendant’s motion, and the imbedded 

transcript [of defense counsel’s post-trial interview of juror 

no. 3] focus entirely on issues of alleged juror misconduct. 

The allegation of coercion or intimidation and the allegation 

of improper use of cell phones both delve into the 

deliberations of jurors. Jurors’ deliberative processes are 

outside of the scope of the Court’s scrutiny under Rule 

24.1(c)(3). That paragraph of the rule describes the only 

grounds under which the Court may examine the conduct of 

jurors. Defendant may not use the broad language of Rule 

24.1(c)(5) to reach issues of deliberative process which were 

excluded under paragraph (c)(3). 

The court went on to discuss the substance of the motion, making clear its 

denial was based on the substantive merits and not a technical failure to cite 

the proper subsection of Rule 24.1. 

CONCLUSION

¶6 For the reasons stated, we grant review but deny relief.