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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

CECIL MAC DONALD DOUGLAS, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 18-0636 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2013-447031-001

The Honorable Gregory S. Como, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix

By Adena J. Astrowsky

Counsel for Respondent

Cecil Mac Donald Douglas, Tucson

Petitioner

FILED 4-2-2019
STATE v. DOUGLAS

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 M. Perkins joined.

J O H N S E N, Judge:

¶1 Cecil Mac Donald Douglas petitions this court for review 

from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. We have 

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

and deny relief.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Douglas pled guilty to one count of sale or transportation of 

marijuana, a Class 3 felony. The superior court suspended Douglas's 

sentence and placed him on three years of supervised probation. The

probation department subsequently filed a petition to revoke Douglas's 

probation, alleging Douglas absconded, left the state without approval and 

failed to pay required fines and fees. The court appointed him an attorney

for the probation proceedings. At the probation violation hearing, Douglas 

admitted he traveled out of state without prior written approval from his 

probation officer. The court revoked Douglas's probation and sentenced 

him to the presumptive term of 3.5 years' imprisonment.

¶3 Douglas filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief ofright in propria persona after his counsel found no colorable claims for relief.

See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.1 (authorizing review through an of-right postconviction relief proceeding for defendants who admit to a probation 

violation).1 After an evidentiary hearing, at which Douglas and his prior 

attorney testified, the superior court denied his petition for post-conviction 

relief.

¶4 We have jurisdiction of Douglas's petition for review 

pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.9(c) and Arizona 

Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") § 13-4239(C) (2019).

 

1 Absent material revision after the date of an alleged offense, we cite 

the current version of a statute or rule.
STATE v. DOUGLAS

Decision of the Court

3

DISCUSSION

¶5 On review, Douglas asserts a claim of ineffective assistance of 

counsel in his probation violation proceeding. Douglas argues counsel 

"coerced" him to admit he traveled out of state without prior approval.

Douglas further contends the superior court would have reinstated him to 

probation if he had admitted only to failing to pay required fines and fees. 

Douglas asks that we modify his sentence and sentence him to the mitigated 

term.

¶6 In a post-conviction relief proceeding, the purpose of an 

evidentiary hearing is to allow the superior court "to receive evidence, make 

factual determinations, and resolve material issues of fact." State v. 

Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 579, ¶ 31 (2012). We review the court's findings of 

fact after an evidentiary hearing to determine if they are clearly erroneous.

State v. Berryman, 178 Ariz. 617, 620 (App. 1994).

¶7 Though not entitled to a "full-blown trial," a defendant facing 

revocation of his probation has the right to counsel. State v. Sanchez, 19 Ariz. 

App. 253, 254 (1973). To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of such 

counsel, a defendant must show that the lawyer's performance fell below 

objectively reasonable standards and that the deficient performance 

prejudiced the defendant. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); 

State v. Nash, 143 Ariz. 392, 397 (1985).

¶8 Here, Douglas has not shown the superior court erred in

denying his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The record does not 

support his contention that his counsel in any way forced him to admit to a 

probation violation. At the probation violation hearing, Douglas testified 

his admissions were made knowingly and voluntarily, and such statements 

are binding. See State v. Hamilton, 142 Ariz. 91, 93 (1984). Nor does Douglas 

show any prejudice. Contrary to his contention, the record does not show

the court would have reinstated him to probation if he had admitted 

violating a term other than the out-of-state travel restriction. He asserts that 

in Maricopa County, defendants "on probation most likely will be 

reinstated on probation" if they admit failing to pay fines or fees. But he 

offers no citations to the record, case law or relevant studies for that 

proposition. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(4)(B) (petition for review must 

contain specific citations to the record, material facts, and, if possible, 

supporting legal authority).
STATE v. DOUGLAS

Decision of the Court

4

¶9 Because Douglas has not shown ineffective assistance of 

counsel that caused him prejudice, he is not entitled to relief. See Strickland, 

466 U.S. at 687.

CONCLUSION

¶10 For the foregoing reasons, we grant review, but deny relief.