State v. Harrison

── State v. Harrison ── Case No.: 1 CA-CR 25-0453 PRPC Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: April 06, 2026 Category: General 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. BYRON M. HARRISON, JR., Petitioner. No. CR 25-0453 PRPC FILED 04-07-2026 Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Coconino County No. S0300CR202000757 The Honorable Ted Stuart Reed, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED COUNSEL Coconino County Attorney’s Office, Flagstaff By Heather A. Mosher Counsel for Respondent Coconino County Legal Defender’s Office, Flagstaff By Joseph Carver Counsel for Petitioner  STATE v. HARRISON Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Andrew J. Becke and Judge Kent E. Cattani joined. T H U M M A, Judge: ¶1 Petitioner Byron M. Harrison, Jr., seeks review of the superior court’s order dismissing his first petition for post-conviction relief, filed under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. For the reasons that follow, this court grants review but denies relief. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 A jury convicted Harrison of possession of narcotic drugs for sale, a Class 2 felony; possession of dangerous drugs, a Class 4 felony; and possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class 6 felony, all committed in September 2020 in Flagstaff. Given Harrison’s prior criminal history, the court sentenced him to concurrent prison terms, the longest of which was 14 years, properly awarding him 227 days of pre-incarceration credit. His convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal. See State v. Harrison, 1 CA-CR 23-0065, 2023 WL 5977227, at *2 ¶ 11 (Ariz. App. Sept. 14, 2023) (mem. decision). ¶3 In April 2024, Harrison filed a self-represented notice seeking post-conviction relief claiming: (1) ineffective assistance of counsel; (2) newly discovered evidence and (3) actual innocence. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.1(a), (e) & (h). The court appointed counsel, who filed a petition in March 2025 asserting ineffective assistance of counsel. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.1(a). The petition alleged that trial counsel failed to provide Harrison with all information necessary to make an informed decision regarding a plea offer. ¶4 The court summarily denied Harrison’s petition, finding that he “failed to show that the performance of [his] two attorneys fell below prevailing professional standards” and that neither attorney gave him erroneous advice nor failed to give him information needed to make an informed decision. The court did not address the claims he made in his self- represented petition. Harrison then filed a petition seeking review by this court. 2  STATE v. HARRISON Decision of the Court DISCUSSION ¶5 This court reviews the denial of a post-conviction relief request for an abuse of discretion. See State v. Bennett, 213 Ariz. 562, 566 ¶ 17 (2006) (citing cases). Harrison argues that, under Rule 32.1(a), his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to “explain relevant legal theories to [him] when necessary to correct [his] mistaken understanding of the law and evidence.” He asserts that trial counsel failed to “explain constructive possession to him” when he “remained fixated on ownership,” which he alleges constituted a failure to provide information necessary t