State v. Norris

── State v. Norris ── Case No.: 1 CA-CR 25-0327 PRPC Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: March 30, 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. CHAD JUSTIN NORRIS, Petitioner. No. 1 CA-CR 25-0327 PRPC FILED 03-30-2026 Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2012-149725-001 The Honorable Joseph C. Kreamer, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Jordan Anthony Smith Counsel for Respondent The Stavris Law Firm PLLC, Scottsdale By Christopher Stavris Counsel for Petitioner  STATE v. NORRIS Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Michael S. Catlett delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Angela K. Paton and Judge Jennifer M. Perkins joined. C A T L E T T, Judge: ¶1 Chad Justin Norris (“Norris”) seeks review of the superior court’s dismissal of his Rule 32 petition for post-conviction relief (“PCR”). Norris argues his trial and appellate counsel were constitutionally ineffective in various ways and the State engaged in prosecutorial misconduct. Because the superior court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Norris’ petition, we grant review but deny relief. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 This Court previously summarized the facts of this case on direct appeal from Norris’ conviction for killing a colleague. State v. Norris, 2018 WL 1281670 (Ariz. App. Mar. 13, 2018) (mem. decision). In that appeal, Norris’ counsel filed an Anders brief and Norris submitted a supplemental brief. Id. at *1 ¶ 1. After reviewing the record for fundamental error and finding none, we affirmed Norris’ conviction for second-degree murder. Id. at *2–3 ¶¶ 9, 11–12. ¶3 Later, Norris filed an amended PCR making multiple claims. The court dismissed Norris’ PCR without holding an evidentiary hearing. What follows is a brief description of Norris’ claims and the court’s reasons for rejecting them. ¶4 Norris made multiple claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. First, Norris claimed his trial counsel was ineffective for not challenging the grand jury proceedings. Norris alleged that the second page of the transcript from his grand jury proceedings listed eleven grand jurors, then at the beginning of the proceedings “it was announced that the entire panel was present, less 5 grand jurors” and one of the “not-present grand jurors was CT.” Norris argued his trial counsel should have challenged the grand jury proceedings because “the record lack[ed] clarity” as to whether nine grand jurors concurred in the indictment. A minute entry stated “[nine] members of the . . . Grand Jury” were present and the foreperson presented the indictment to the court. The superior court did 2  STATE v. NORRIS Decision of the Court not disagree with Norris’ description of the transcript, but rejected his argument because the minute entry, which the court called “the official court record,” stated that “all nine were present.” ¶5 Norris also claimed trial counsel was ineffective during plea negotiations. Before trial, the State indicated a willingness to offer a plea agreement in exchange for the location of the victim’s body. Norris declined the offer. Norris included an affidavit with his PCR stating that his counsel was “supposed to propose an alternative” plea offer to the