NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.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.

JEREMY LYNN GARRISON, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 12-0505 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Yavapai County

Nos. P1300CR20090603 and V1300CR201180101

The Honorable Cele Hancock, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED IN PART; REMANDED IN PART 

COUNSEL

Yavapai County Attorney’s Office, Prescott

By Dana E. Owens

Counsel for Respondent

White Law Offices, Flagstaff

By Wendy F. White

Counsel for Petitioner
STATE v. GARRISON

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Kenton D. Jones delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Margaret H. Downie and Judge Donn Kessler joined.

J O N E S, Judge:

¶1 Petitioner Jeremy Lyn Garrison petitions this Court for 

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

Presiding Judge Kenton D. Jones and Judges Margaret H. Downie and 

Donn Kessler have considered the petition for review and, for the reasons 

stated, grant review, deny relief in part and remand in part. We have 

jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.9(c). 

I. Background

¶2 This matter involves two cases. In the first case, Garrison 

pled guilty to attempted aggravated domestic violence and the trial court 

placed him on probation. In the second case, which occurred 

approximately two years later, a jury convicted Garrison of stalking and 

harassment. As a result of these convictions, the trial court revoked

Garrison’s probation in the first case, imposing instead a sentence of two 

years' imprisonment. As his sentence in the second case, Garrison was 

ordered to serve a consecutive term of 3.75 years' imprisonment for 

stalking and time served for harassment. Garrison did not file a direct 

appeal. He did, however, file a timely, consolidated petition for postconviction relief. The trial court dismissed the petition and Garrison now 

seeks review. In his petition for review, Garrison argues his trial counsel 

in the second case was ineffective in failing to object to the admission of 

certain evidence. He further argues the trial court failed to give him 

sufficient credit for his presentence incarceration.1

II. The Failure to Object

¶3 The victims of the harassment and stalking convictions in 

the second case are husband and wife. The convictions were based upon 

 1 Garrison raised additional issues below but does not present them for 

review. 
STATE v. GARRISON

Decision of the Court

3

numerous messages Garrison left on telephone answering devices of the 

victims. The victim of the attempted domestic violence conviction in the 

first case was the wife's adult daughter. The trial court ruled that 

telephone calls Garrison made to the daughter, in the first case, were 

admissible in the trial of the second case pursuant to Arizona Rule of 

Evidence 404(b). Those calls contained death threats and other threats of 

violence and vulgarity. 

¶4 Garrison argues counsel in his second case was ineffective in 

failing to object to what Garrison describes as "character evidence" 

introduced through the daughter and the wife – evidence he argues went 

beyond the content of the calls Garrison made in the first case.2 Regarding 

the daughter's testimony, Garrison asserts counsel should have objected 

when the daughter testified that during her relationship with Garrison, 

she knew he was an "angry and violent" person based upon the way he 

yelled and screamed at her, called her names, pulled her hair, hit her and 

kicked her, threw and destroyed "things," and punched holes in the walls 

of her home. Regarding the wife's testimony, Garrison contends counsel 

should have objected when she testified Garrison fit profiles of stalkers 

she found online and that some of Garrison's statements made her think of 

O.J. Simpson and caused her to imagine how Garrison might kill her 

daughter. 

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

a defendant must show counsel's performance fell below objectively 

reasonable standards and the deficient performance prejudiced the 

defendant. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 

2064 (1984). To illustrate prejudice, a defendant must show 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, 104 S.Ct. 

2068. "A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine 

confidence in the outcome." Id. 

¶6 Garrison has failed to state a colorable claim of ineffective

assistance based upon the failure to object. First, not every failure to 

object to evidence is ineffective assistance of counsel. State v. Valdez, 160

Ariz. 9, 15, 770 P.2d 313, 319 (1989). Strategic choices of counsel “are 

virtually unchallengeable.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690-91, 104 S.Ct. at 2066. 

Second, Garrison has failed to prove he suffered any prejudice because he 

 2 We address only that evidence for which Garrison provides citations to 

the record.
STATE v. GARRISON

Decision of the Court

4

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

unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been 

different." Id. at 703, 104 S.Ct. at 2072; State v. Lee, 142 Ariz. 210, 214, 689 

P.2d 153, 157 (1984). The jury heard evidence regarding the death threats 

and threats of violence and vulgarity Garrison left in the messages to the 

daughter, and Garrison raises no issues regarding those prior messages. 

Further, Garrison conceded he left the subsequent messages to the wife 

and husband. The content of those messages was not in question; they too 

contained threats and vulgarity. The only issue for the jury to decide was 

whether those messages, as charged, would cause a reasonable person to 

fear for the person's safety or the safety of an immediate family member,

and whether the wife and husband did in fact fear for their safety or the 

safety of an immediate family member. Ariz. Rev. Stat. (A.R.S.) § 13-

2923(A)(1) (2014)3 (stalking defined). 

¶7 Arguably, the testimony of the daughter and wife placed 

those messages in context and was admissible to prove those messages 

would cause a reasonable person, who had knowledge of Garrison's prior 

actions, to fear for his or her safety or the safety of an immediate family 

member. Garrison offers nothing to suggest the trial court would have 

sustained an objection. Even if objectionable, given the evidence, Garrison 

has failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability the results would have 

been different had counsel objected to the evidence in question. This is 

especially true in light of the jury not convicting Garrison of stalking the 

husband, but convicted him of the lesser-included offense of harassment

of the husband. Clearly, the jury was not persuaded by the testimony at 

issue. If the jury believed Garrison was a stalker simply because the wife 

said he fit the profile and reminded her of O.J. Simpson, and the daughter 

claimed he engaged in acts of violence, the jury would have seemingly 

found him guilty of stalking the husband as well. 

III. Presentence Incarceration Credit

¶8 Garrison argues the trial court failed to give him sufficient 

credit for presentence incarceration. The trial court did not address this 

issue in its dismissal. We remand for the trial court to address Garrison's 

claims regarding presentence incarceration credit. 

 3 In the absence of material revisions, we cite the current version of 

statutes and rules.
STATE v. GARRISON

Decision of the Court

5

IV. Conclusion

¶9 We grant review, deny relief in part, grant relief in part and 

remand for proceedings consistent with this decision.