State v. Mitchell

── State v. Mitchell ── Case No.: 1 CA-CR 25-0337 PRPC Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: March 18, 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. CHERDON DORSHEA MITCHELL, Petitioner. No. 1 CA-CR 25-0337 PRPC FILED 03-18-2026 Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2021-003151-001 The Honorable Monica Edelstein, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Douglas Gerlach Counsel for Respondent Maricopa County Office of the Legal Advocate, Phoenix By Kyle Kinkead Counsel for Petitioner  STATE v. MITCHELL Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge James B. Morse Jr. delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Andrew M. Jacobs and Judge Brian Y. Furuya joined. M O R S E, Judge: ¶1 Cherdon Dorshea Mitchell ("Mitchell") petitions for review of the dismissal of his first petition for post-conviction relief. He argues he is entitled to relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We grant review and deny relief. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 Mitchell pled guilty to second-degree murder, in exchange for the state agreeing to adjust the potential the sentencing range from 10–25 years to 12–20 years. After entering a guilty plea, Mitchell unsuccessfully tried to withdraw from the plea agreement. ¶3 Mitchell retained new counsel for sentencing. His counsel filed a sentencing memorandum which asserted the following mitigating factors: remorse and acceptance of responsibility, mental-health history, lack of a violent prior criminal record, and strong family support. However, his counsel also asserted in the sentencing memorandum that Mitchell's then-counsel coerced Mitchell into taking a plea agreement he did not want, and that the superior court improperly refused to let Mitchell withdraw from the plea agreement. At the sentencing hearing, Mitchell's counsel briefly addressed each of the mitigating factors from the sentencing memorandum but discussed at length his belief that Mitchell should have been allowed to withdraw from the plea agreement. The superior court found two aggravating factors: emotional harm suffered by the family and prior felonies, and two mitigating factors: acceptance of responsibility and mental-health issues. After finding that the aggravating factors outweighed those in mitigation, the superior court sentenced Mitchell to a slightly aggravated term of 18 years in prison. ¶4 Mitchell filed for post-conviction relief under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 33. He raises an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, arguing that his counsel at sentencing inappropriately accused the State, Mitchell's former counsel, and the superior court of misconduct and 2  STATE v. MITCHELL Decision of the Court failed to argue the applicable mitigating factors sufficiently. In support of his claims, Mitchell attached his counsel's state bar disciplinary records showing he had been disciplined for similar behavior in the past. ¶5 The superior court summarily dismissed Mitchell's petition and held he had not established either part of the Strickland test for ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). The superior court explained that Mitchell's counsel addressed the appropriate mitigating fact