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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

AARON EDMOND, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 14-0630 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Coconino County

No. CR2013-00241

The Honorable Jacqueline Hatch, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Coconino County Attorney’s Office, Flagstaff

By David W. Rozema

Counsel for Respondent

Aaron Edmond, Kingman

Petitioner
STATE v. EDMOND

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop and Chief Judge Michael J. Brown 

joined.

C A T T A N I, Judge:

¶1 Aaron Edmond petitions this court for review from the 

dismissal of his second petition for post-conviction relief. For reasons that 

follow, we grant review but deny relief.

¶2 Edmond pleaded guilty to transportation of marijuana for 

sale and, consistent with the terms of his plea agreement, was sentenced to 

a presumptive term of five years in prison. Edmond then filed an of-right 

petition for post-conviction relief challenging his conviction and sentence 

(on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel and newly discovered 

evidence), which the superior court summarily dismissed.1

¶3 Edmond thereafter filed this second petition for postconviction relief asserting various constitutional claims, including a 

challenge to the propriety of the traffic stop that led to his arrest and an 

assertion that because he was a California medical marijuana cardholder, 

his possession of marijuana was permissible. The superior court found that 

Edmond’s claims were precluded under Arizona Rule of Criminal 

Procedure 32.2(a)(3) and summarily dismissed the petition. This petition 

for review followed.

¶4 All of the issues Edmond presents for review are precluded, 

either because they were waived when he pleaded guilty or waived when 

he filed his first, of-right petition for post-conviction relief. By pleading 

guilty, Edmond waived all non-jurisdictional defenses, errors, and defects 

that occurred prior to the plea. State v. Moreno, 134 Ariz. 199, 200 (App. 

1982). This waiver includes alleged deprivations of constitutional rights, 

Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973), and all claims of ineffective 

assistance of counsel not directly related to the entry of the plea. State v. 

 

1 The court granted the of-right petition in part as to restitution only, 

vacating the restitution order as premature under State v. Lopez, 231 Ariz. 

561 (App. 2013).
STATE v. EDMOND

Decision of the Court

3

Quick, 177 Ariz. 314, 316 (App. 1994). Edmond’s guilty plea thus waived 

the arguments presented in his petition that the stop and search were 

constitutionally defective and that there was no evidence to justify his 

conviction in light of his California medical marijuana card.

¶5 Moreover, Edmond’s assertion that his trial counsel was 

ineffective in conducting a pretrial investigation and failing to file a 

suppression motion was waived by Edmond’s acceptance and entry of a 

guilty plea. See Quick, 177 Ariz. at 316. To the extent Edmond contends his 

trial counsel was ineffective in relation to entry of the plea, Edmond was 

required to raise this Rule 32.1(a) claim in his first, of-right petition, and it 

is now precluded. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a). Although Edmond’s notice 

of post-conviction relief mentioned newly discovered evidence and actual 

innocence as grounds for filing a successive petition, he did not develop 

any such basis for an exception to preclusion under Rule 32.2(b).

¶6 Accordingly, we grant review but deny relief.