State v. Fields

── State v. Fields ── Case No.: 1 CA-CR 25-0294 PRPC Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: April 02, 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. CHRISTOPHER ALLEN FIELDS, Petitioner. No. 1 CA-CR 25-0294 PRPC FILED 04-02-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County Nos. S1300CR202480005, S1300CR202480140, S1300CR202480141, S1300CR202480148 The Honorable Michael R. Bluff, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED COUNSEL Yavapai County Attorney’s Office, Prescott By Dennis M. McGrane Counsel for Respondent Christopher Allen Fields, Eloy Petitioner  STATE v. FIELDS Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Vice Chief Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown and Judge Veronika Fabian joined. W E I N Z W E I G, Vice Chief Judge: ¶1 Petitioner Christopher Allen Fields seeks review of the superior court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief (“PCR”). We grant review but deny relief. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 Fields entered into a global plea agreement for four cases. He pled guilty to 11 crimes. The superior court sentenced him to 10.5 years in prison. He filed a PCR petition, which the court denied. Fields was prevented from timely petitioning this court for review, and the superior court allowed a delayed filing in the interest of justice. DISCUSSION ¶3 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will not disturb the superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief. State v. Reed, 252 Ariz. 236, 238, ¶ 6 (App. 2021). The petitioner bears the burden to establish that the court abused its discretion. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 538, ¶ 1 (App. 2011). ¶4 Fields argues relief should be granted because he received ineffective assistance from counsel. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 33.1(a). I. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel. ¶5 To prove ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner must (1) “demonstrate that counsel’s conduct fell below an objective standard of reasonableness” and (2) “that he was prejudiced thereby.” State v. Bigger, 251 Ariz. 402, 407, ¶ 8 (2021) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687–88 (1984)). “Failure to satisfy either prong of the Strickland test is fatal to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.” State v. Bennett, 213 Ariz. 562, 567, ¶ 21 (2006). When it comes to plea negotiations, Fields must prove his lawyer either (1) gave erroneous advice or (2) failed to give information 2  STATE v. FIELDS Decision of the Court necessary to allow the petitioner to make an informed decision whether to accept the plea. State v. Donald, 198 Ariz. 406, 413, ¶ 16 (App. 2000). A defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing if they present a colorable claim for relief. State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 578, ¶ 25 (2012). A. Objective Standard of Reasonableness. ¶6 Fields argues that his attorney’s conduct fell below an objective standard of reasonableness because he never received any police reports, witness statements, video or other evidence. To state a colorable claim, the petitioner must allege “specific facts which would allow a court to meaningfully assess why [counsel’s] deficiency was material to the plea decision.”