NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE

LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS 

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

v.

CLINTON JAMES DENNIS, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 13-0139 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

Nos. CR2001-006104, CR2001-005754

The Honorable Arthur T. Anderson, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Diane M. Meloche

Counsel for Respondent

Clinton J. Dennis, Florence

Petitioner 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judges Michael J. Brown, Jon W. Thompson, and Diane M. Johnsen 

delivered the decision of the Court.
STATE v. DENNIS

Decision of the Court

2

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner Clinton J. Dennis petitions this court for review 

from the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. Presiding 

Judge Michael J. Brown and Judges Jon W. Thompson and Diane M. 

Johnsen have considered the petition for review and, for the reasons 

stated, grant review and deny relief.

¶2 This matter involves two consolidated cases. In the first 

case, a jury convicted Dennis of eighteen felony sexual offenses committed 

against three different victims. The trial court sentenced him to an 

aggregate term of approximately two hundred years' imprisonment. In 

the second case, a jury convicted Dennis of possession of a dangerous 

drug and possession of drug paraphernalia. The trial court sentenced him 

to an aggregate term of 2.5 years' imprisonment. We affirmed Dennis's 

convictions and sentences in a consolidated direct appeal. State v. Dennis, 

1 CA-CR 02-0209; 1 CA-CR 02-0239 (Consolidated) (Ariz. App. Jun. 26, 

2003). Dennis now seeks review of the summary dismissal of his second 

petition for post-conviction relief. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 

Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.9(c). 

¶3 Dennis argues the recent Supreme Court decisions of 

Missouri v. Frye, ___ U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (2012), and Lafler v. Cooper, 

___ U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (2012), constitute significant changes in the 

law that permit him to raise an untimely claim of ineffective assistance of 

counsel during the plea bargain process. In both cases, the Supreme Court 

held a defendant has a right to effective assistance of counsel during the 

plea bargain process. Frye, ___ U.S. at ___, 132 S. Ct. at 1407-08; Lafler, ___ 

U.S. at ___, 132 S. Ct. at 1384. In Frye, the court further held the right to 

effective assistance includes the right to have counsel communicate all 

formal, favorable plea offers to the defendant. Frye, ___ U.S. at ___, 132 S.

Ct. at 1408. Dennis argues that until these recent cases, Arizona did not 

recognize the right to effective assistance of counsel during the plea 

bargain process. 

¶4 We deny relief. Frye and Lafler are not significant changes in 

the law as applied in Arizona. At the time Dennis claims he and his 

counsel were involved in plea negotiations, Arizona already recognized 

the right to effective assistance of counsel during the plea bargain process

and that counsel must adequately communicate all plea offers to the 

defendant. State v. Donald, 198 Ariz. 406, 413, ¶¶ 14-17, 10 P.3d 1193, 1200 

(App. 2000). Dennis could have raised this claim in his first petition for 

post-conviction relief in 2004. Any claim a defendant could have raised 
STATE v. DENNIS

Decision of the Court

3

in an earlier post-conviction relief proceeding is precluded. Ariz. R. Crim. 

P. 32.2(a). 

¶5 We grant review and deny relief.