NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZ. R. SUP. CT. 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.

ALGENE LOUIS BROWN, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 13-0029 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2004-036553-001

The Honorable Pamela D. Svoboda, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Nicholas Saccone

Counsel for Respondent

Algene Louis Brown, San Luis

Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Patricia A. Orozco and Judge Kenton D. Jones joined.
STATE v. BROWN

Decision of the Court

2

W I N T H R O P, Judge:

¶1 Petitioner, Algene Louis Brown (“Brown”), seeks review of 

the trial court’s order dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief, 

filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. After 

considering the petition for review, we grant review and deny relief for 

the reasons stated below.

¶2 A jury convicted Brown of manufacture of dangerous drugs,

sale of dangerous drugs, conspiracy to manufacture dangerous drugs, and 

two counts of child abuse. The trial court sentenced him to an aggregate 

term of 23.25 years’ imprisonment, and this court affirmed his convictions 

and sentences on direct appeal. See State v. Brown, 1 CA-CR 05-0386 (Ariz. 

App. Apr. 18, 2006). Brown 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 Brown asserts his trial counsel were ineffective when they 

failed to inform him of and/or adequately explain a favorable plea offer 

the State made before trial. Brown argues that had he known of the offer 

and/or understood its details, he would have accepted the offer rather 

than go to trial. Brown claims he is entitled to raise this claim in a 

successive petition for post-conviction relief based on 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), both of which Brown 

argues constitute significant changes in the law. In both cases, the 

Supreme Court held a defendant has a right to effective assistance of 

counsel during the plea bargain process. See 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. 

___ U.S. at ___, 132 S. Ct. at 1408.

¶4 We deny relief. Brown raised this same claim of ineffective 

assistance in his first petition for post-conviction relief. Any claim a 

defendant raised in an earlier post-conviction relief proceeding is 

precluded. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a). Further, Frye and Lafler are not 

significant changes in the law as applied in Arizona. Arizona has long 

recognized that the right to effective assistance of counsel extends to the 

plea bargain process and that counsel must adequately communicate all 
STATE v. BROWN

Decision of the Court

3

plea offers to the defendant. See State v. Donald, 198 Ariz. 406, 413, ¶¶ 14-

17, 10 P.3d 1193, 1200 (App. 2000).1

¶5 Although the petition for review arguably presents 

additional issues, Brown did not raise those issues in the petition for postconviction relief he filed below. A petition for review may not present 

issues not first presented to the trial court. See State v. Bortz, 169 Ariz. 575, 

577, 821 P.2d 236, 238 (App. 1991); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii).

¶6 For the above reasons, we grant review and deny relief.

 

1 Although these are not the grounds upon which the trial court 

dismissed the petition, we may affirm the decision of the trial court on any 

basis supported by the record. See State v. Robinson, 153 Ariz. 191, 199, 735 

P.2d 801, 809 (1987).