State v. Murphy-Richardson

── State v. Murphy-Richardson ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: May 21, 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. ISMAEL ANTONIO MURPHY-RICHARDSON, Petitioner. No. 1 CA-CR 25-0451 PRPC FILED 05-21-2026 Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2018-102788-001 The Honorable Ronda R. Fisk, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Philip D. Garrow Counsel for Respondent Ismael Antonio Murphy-Richardson, Florence Petitioner  STATE v. MURPHY-RICHARDSON Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge D. Andrew Gaona delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge David B. Gass and Judge Anni Hill Foster joined. G A O N A, Judge: ¶1 Petitioner Ismael Antonio Murphy-Richardson seeks review of the superior court’s summary dismissal of his petition for post- conviction relief. We grant review but deny relief. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 In January 2018, the State charged Murphy-Richardson with three counts of sexual assault. Murphy-Richardson pled not guilty. At a hearing three months later, Murphy-Richardson moved to waive his right to counsel and represent himself. The superior court granted his motion and appointed advisory counsel. Murphy-Richardson then rejected the State’s plea offer. ¶3 In August 2018, the court revoked Murphy-Richardson’s self- representation and appointed his advisory counsel as his counsel of record. Despite that representation, Murphy-Richardson continued filing motions and refused to meet with counsel or investigators. The court ordered an Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure (“Rule”) 11 evaluation at counsel’s request and found Murphy-Richardson competent in December 2018. ¶4 A week later, at a hearing originally set as a status conference, Murphy-Richardson changed his pleas to guilty (“plea hearing”). At the plea hearing, counsel informed the court that Murphy-Richardson wanted to plead guilty. Murphy-Richardson then stated he “ha[d] it here in writing” and provided the court with a letter, dated two weeks before, pleading guilty “intelligently and willingly, knowing the seriousness of the crime and consequences of [doing so].” ¶5 During the plea hearing, the State re-extended its original plea offer of five years in prison and lifetime probation with sex offender terms. The court carefully reviewed the terms of the plea offer and sentencing range with Murphy-Richardson. Murphy-Richardson acknowledged that rejecting the plea offer and pleading directly to the court would expose him 2  STATE v. MURPHY-RICHARDSON Decision of the Court to substantially greater prison time. The court explained to Murphy- Richardson that by pleading to the court and with his criminal history he would face a potential sentence of 47.25 to 84 years in prison. But even with this explanation, Murphy-Richardson stated he wanted “to take full responsibility [for his] actions,” and “be a man about these things.” The court then conducted an extensive plea colloquy and accepted his guilty pleas, finding them knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. ¶6 At sentencing in February 2019, Murphy-Richardson criticized counsel and the proceedings. The court imposed presumptive seven-year prison terms for each count, totaling twenty-one years, with credit fo