State v. Gray

── State v. Gray ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: May 07, 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. MICAIAH PAUL GRAY, Petitioner. No. 1 CA-CR 25-0497 PRPC FILED 05-07-2026 Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Mohave County No. S8015CR201200330 The Honorable Derek C. Carlisle, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED COUNSEL Mohave County Attorney’s Office, Kingman By Matthew J. Smith Counsel for Respondent Micaiah Paul Gray, Buckeye Petitioner  STATE v. GRAY Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge David B. Gass, Judge Anni Hill Foster, and Judge D. Andrew Gaona delivered the decision of the court. PER CURIAM: ¶1 Petitioner Micaiah Paul Gray seeks review of the superior court’s order summarily dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief under Rule 33, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. The court grants review, but denies relief. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 In 2014, Gray pleaded no contest to second-degree murder. The superior court sentenced him to 20 calendar years in prison, followed by a term of community supervision. ¶3 In 2024, Gray filed a notice requesting relief, alleging claims under Rule 33.1(a), (c), (e), and (f). He acknowledged his notice was untimely, but said “[he] did not know there was a problem until a paralegal told [him].” The superior court appointed counsel, who later filed a notice of completion of the record indicating she could not identify any colorable claim for relief. ¶4 Gray then filed 2 self-represented-litigant petitions for relief. First, he argued the community supervision term was illegal and violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments rights, alleging it would require him to serve more than his original sentence. Second, he argued the superior court erred in finding aggravating factors because the jury had to find those factors. Third, he argued counsel was ineffective because counsel did not: (1) object to the community supervision term; (2) challenge the superior court’s aggravating factors findings; and (3) request a new mental-health evaluation to determine his competency to enter a no-contest plea. ¶5 The superior court summarily dismissed Gray’s petition. The superior court found his Rule 33.1(a) claims untimely because he filed his notice more than 10 years after his sentencing and did not explain why the failure to timely file a notice was not his fault. The superior court also found 2  STATE v. GRAY Decision of the Court his other claims untimely because he did not show he filed his notice within a reasonable time after discovering the basis for those claims. The superior court further found his community supervision challenge lacked merit because community supervision is appropriate under State v. Jenkins, 193 Ariz. 115, 118–20 ¶¶ 7–14 (App. 1998). The superior court also rejected his argument about aggravating factors, noting he waived any right to jury findings when he pleaded no contest. The superior court then denied Gray’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim, saying Gray failed to show counsel was deficient for not raising those arguments. Finally, the superior court found Gray presented no evidence suggesting he was incompetent to enter a no-contest plea. ¶6 Gray petitioned for revie