State v. Brown

── State v. Brown ── Case No.: 1 CA-CR 25-0281 PRPC Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: April 03, 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. DOMINIQUE DISHAWN BROWN, Petitioner. No. 1 CA-CR 25-0281 PRPC FILED 04-03-2026 Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2021-106431-001 The Honorable Monica Edelstein, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Phillip D. Garrow Counsel for Respondent Dominique Dishawn Brown, Yuma Petitioner Pro Se  STATE v. BROWN Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Chief Judge Randall M. Howe delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge David B. Gass and Judge Anni Hill Foster joined. H O W E, Judge: ¶1 Dominique Brown petitions for review of the superior court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. For the following reasons, we grant review and relief on Brown’s presentence incarceration credit claim but deny relief as to his other claims. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 In February 2021, the State charged Brown with one count of felony murder and one count of armed robbery. See A.R.S. §§ 13-1105(A)(2), -1904. Just three months later, Brown moved to waive his right to counsel and represent himself. The court conducted a colloquy; found that his waiver was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made; ordered the self-representation; and appointed Brown advisory counsel. ¶3 Over the next three-and-a-half years while in custody, Brown filed over 45 motions, including 14 motions to dismiss and multiple motions to continue. Although the court appointed several attorneys as his advisory counsel over this time, Brown repeatedly reaffirmed his desire to represent himself. Also during this time, the court held multiple settlement conferences and, on Brown’s requests, continued the trial date several times. ¶4 Brown ultimately pled guilty to one count of armed robbery, a class 2 felony. He then moved to withdraw from the plea, claiming that he was unwillingly “forced” to enter the plea “or the court would set a trial date.” The court denied the motion and sentenced Brown to 13.5 years’ imprisonment with credit for 731 days of presentence incarceration. ¶5 Brown timely petitioned for post-conviction relief, arguing that he (1) “was denied the Constitutional right to representation,” (2) had newly discovered material facts that would have changed the outcome, (3) was actually innocent, and (4) did not receive all the presentence incarceration credit he was entitled to. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 33.1(a), (e), (h). The court dismissed Brown’s petition. The court found that Brown’s 2  STATE v. BROWN Decision of the Court ineffective assistance of counsel claim “[wa]s based on his position that counsel erred by not challenging the grand jury proceedings at the offset of the case” and reasoned “that any challenge to the underlying charges is rendered moot by the subsequent guilty plea as to one count and dismissal of the remaining counts in the challenged indictment.” The court also found that because the information Brown provided “was available and existed prior to the entry of judgment, [he ] failed to establish that [it] qualifie[d] as newly discovered material.” Regarding actual