NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

SCOTT LEE DESHAW, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 13-0635 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR 1994-011396

The Honorable Bruce R. Cohen, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Diane Meloche

Counsel for Respondent

Scott Lee DeShaw, Buckeye

Petitioner

Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Phoenix

By Stacey F. Gottlieb

Counsel for Amicus Curiae
STATE v. DESHAW

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Andrew W. Gould delivered the decision of the court, in which Chief 

Judge Diane M. Johnsen and Judge Peter B. Swann joined. 

G O U L D, Judge:

¶1 Petitioner Scott Lee Deshaw petitions this court for review of

the summary dismissal of his notice of post-conviction relief. We have 

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

and deny relief. 

¶2 A jury convicted Deshaw of armed robbery, kidnapping and 

first degree murder. Deshaw committed the offenses in 1994 when he was 

seventeen. The trial court sentenced Deshaw to imprisonment for natural 

life for murder and two consecutive terms of fifteen years' imprisonment

for armed robbery and kidnapping. We affirmed Deshaw's convictions and 

sentences on direct appeal. State v. Deshaw, 1 CA-CR 97-0727 (Oct. 29, 1998) 

(mem. decision). Deshaw now seeks review of the summary dismissal of 

the notice of his third petition for post-conviction relief. We have

jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.9(c).

¶3 Deshaw contends the Supreme Court opinion in Miller v. 

Alabama constitutes a significant change in the law that required the trial 

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

(significant change in the law as a ground for post-conviction relief); 32.2(b) 

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

In Miller, the Supreme Court 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.'" 

Miller v. Alabama, __ U.S. __, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 2460 (2012). The court further 

held that a trial 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 

___, 132 S.Ct. at 2469.

¶4 We assume arguendo that Miller is retroactive. Even so, we 

deny relief. Miller prohibits mandatory life sentences without the possibility 

of parole for juvenile offenders. Id. at 2460. Deshaw's sentence to natural 
STATE v. DESHAW

Decision of the Court

3

life was not mandatory. The trial court had the option to sentence Deshaw

to natural life or life with a possibility of parole after twenty-five years' 

imprisonment. Ariz. Rev. Stat. ("A.R.S.") § 13-703(A) (1994). Further, in its 

determination of the appropriate sentence, the trial court gave "great 

weight" to Deshaw's "youthful age" and "his emotional and moral 

immaturity." The court also gave "significant weight" to Deshaw’s difficult 

childhood and "dysfunctional family experiences." Even so, the court 

believed Deshaw should spend the rest of his life in prison. Therefore, the 

court took into account "how children are different" and Deshaw's sentence

to natural life complied with Miller. 

¶5 While the petition for review presents additional issues, 

Deshaw did not raise those issues in the petition for post-conviction relief 

he filed below. A petition for review may not present issues the petitioner 

did not first present to the trial court. State v. Ramirez, 126 Ariz. 464, 467 

(App. 1980); State v. Wagstaff, 161 Ariz. 66, 71 (App. 1988); State v. Bortz, 169 

Ariz. 575, 577 (App. 1991); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii).1

¶6 We grant review and deny relief.

 

1 We also decline to address issues and arguments Deshaw himself 

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

court and below. See Town of Chino Valley v. City of Prescott, 131 Ariz. 78, 84 

(1981) (amici curiae may not create, extend or enlarge issues).