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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

No. 1 CA-CR 16-0605 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2007-116269-001

CR2014-030311-001

CR2014-135367-001

The Honorable Richard L. Nothwehr, Judge Pro Tempore

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix

By Daniel Strange

Counsel for Respondent

Michael Thomas Christie, Florence

Petitioner

FILED 9-12-2017
STATE v. CHRISTIE

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen delivered the decision of the court, in 

which Judge Michael J. Brown and Judge Jennifer B. Campbell joined.

J O H N S E N, Judge:

¶1 Michael Thomas Christie petitions this court for review from 

the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to 

Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32. We have considered the petition 

for review and, for the reasons stated, grant review and deny relief.

¶2 Christie was charged with trafficking in stolen goods and two 

counts of possession of marijuana. At the time of the charged offenses, he

was on probation after being convicted of misconduct involving weapons.

At a settlement conference, the parties engaged in a lengthy discussion 

about Christie's prior felony history and his personal circumstances, 

including possible mitigating circumstances. Christie told the court that he 

had "changed [his] life around" but that the death of his sister caused him 

to relapse and commit the crimes with which he was charged.

¶3 A month later, Christie agreed to plead guilty to trafficking in 

stolen goods and one marijuana charge. The plea agreement stipulated for 

imposition of concurrent sentences, the longest of which was eight years. 

The State agreed to dismiss the allegations of prior felony offenses for 

sentencing enhancement purposes and to refrain from filing additional

pending drug charges. The superior court sentenced him in accordance 

with the plea.

¶4 Christie then filed a timely pro se petition for relief. Christie 

alleged his trial counsel had been ineffective in failing to investigate his 

mental-health history, failing to argue vigorously for a mitigated sentence 

based upon his mental-health history and failing to request a hearing to 

offer evidence in support of a mitigated sentence. Christie also claimed he 

was not given the opportunity to review the presentence report before he 

was sentenced, and alleged his sentence constituted cruel and unusual 

punishment. He went on to allege that his appointed post-conviction relief 

counsel, who had found no colorable issue to raise, also was ineffective. 

The superior court denied Christie's petition, finding he had not provided 
STATE v. CHRISTIE

Decision of the Court

3

facts to support his claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and 

offered no evidence that his post-conviction relief attorney had been 

ineffective. The court found Christie's Eighth Amendment argument 

lacked identifiable and understandable legal arguments.

¶5 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will 

not disturb the superior court's denial of a petition for post-conviction 

relief. State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012).

¶6 "The relevant inquiry for determining whether [Christie] is 

entitled to an evidentiary hearing is whether he has alleged facts which, if 

true, would probably have changed the verdict or sentence." State v. Amaral, 

239 Ariz. 217, 220, ¶ 11 (2016). Christie filed an affidavit of his own with 

his petition for post-conviction relief, but failed to provide the court with 

any evidence in support of the statements made in his affidavit. Further, a 

review of the record suggests that Christie's claims are unfounded.

¶7 To state a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, 

a defendant must show that counsel's performance fell below objectively 

reasonable standards and that the deficient performance prejudiced the 

defendant. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687–88 (1984); State v. 

Nash, 143 Ariz. 392, 397 (1985). To demonstrate prejudice, a defendant must 

show that there is a "reasonable probability that, but for counsel's 

unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been 

different." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694. "A reasonable probability is a 

probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome." Id.

¶8 Christie has not provided medical or mental health records in 

support of his allegation that he would have received a lighter sentence if 

his trial counsel had investigated and presented his mental-health history. 

He did provide a Department of Corrections mental-health contact form, 

but the form was created after Christie had been sentenced; it also noted

that he was not severely mentally ill, was not taking psychotropic 

medication, was not experiencing visual or auditory hallucinations, and did 

not have thoughts of harming himself or others.

¶9 Further, we see nothing in the record to support Christie's 

claim that his trial counsel was otherwise ineffective. At the settlement 

conference, the prosecutor said to Christie, "your defense attorney has 

already basically negotiated down the plea to less than what it originally 

was going to be. So she has worked hard on your behalf." His attorney 

spoke at the settlement conference about Christie's diagnosis of hepatitis

and said Christie feared for his life in prison.
STATE v. CHRISTIE

Decision of the Court

4

¶10 During the change-of-plea hearing, when asked if he had 

used alcohol or drugs or taken any prescription medications in the last 72 

hours, Christie answered that he had not. There was no mention of him 

taking any psychotropic medications. At sentencing, the State did 

acknowledge Christie's mental-health issues as a rationale for its 

recommendation that probation be continued for his probation violation. 

When the court asked Christie if there was anything he wanted the court to 

know about himself, Christie did not mention any mental-health history.1

¶11 In sum, Christie has failed to provide any evidence that 

counsel was ineffective, and nothing in the record suggests his sentence 

would have been reduced or mitigated by the introduction of additional 

medical or mental-health information.

¶12 Christie also claims he was not given the opportunity to 

review his presentence report before the sentencing hearing. A defendant's 

right to inspect a presentence report is in the discretion of the trial court. 

State v. Gunter, 132 Ariz. 64, 72 (App. 1982) (citation omitted). Christie's

probation violation report stated that Christie had reported a diagnosed 

mental-health disorder and that he was taking medication and was stable. 

Christie has not supplied any evidence of additional material that should 

have been included in the report; nor does he explain how or why he might 

have received a lighter sentence if he had seen the presentence report before 

he was sentenced.

¶13 Christie also alleges his post-conviction relief counsel was 

ineffective for failing to file a petition for review, but he offers no evidence 

in support of that claim. Accordingly, the superior court did not abuse its 

discretion in concluding that he had failed to demonstrate any basis for the 

claim. See State v. Borbon, 146 Ariz. 392, 399–400 (1985) (superior court need 

not conduct an evidentiary hearing based on generalizations and 

unsubstantiated claims of ineffective assistance of counsel).

¶14 Finally, Christie's reference to the Eighth Amendment is not 

supported by any facts or legal argument. His unsupported contention that 

his sentence is cruel and unusual is not enough to raise a colorable claim.

See State v. Moody, 208 Ariz. 424, 452, ¶ 101, n.9 (2004).

 

1 During a criminal proceeding in 2007, Christie underwent a Rule 11 

mental competency evaluation and was found competent to stand trial and 

participate in his defense.
STATE v. CHRISTIE

Decision of the Court

5

¶15 Because the superior court neither abused its discretion nor 

made erroneous conclusions of law in dismissing Christie's petition, we 

grant review but deny relief.