State v. Harrison

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

BYRON M. HARRISON, JR., Petitioner.

No. CR 25-0453 PRPC
FILED 04-07-2026

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Coconino County
No. S0300CR202000757
The Honorable Ted Stuart Reed, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Coconino County Attorney’s Office, Flagstaff
By Heather A. Mosher
Counsel for Respondent

Coconino County Legal Defender’s Office, Flagstaff
By Joseph Carver
Counsel for Petitioner
STATE v. HARRISON
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Judge Andrew J. Becke and Judge Kent E. Cattani joined.

T H U M M A, Judge:

¶1 Petitioner Byron M. Harrison, Jr., seeks review of the superior
court’s order dismissing his first petition for post-conviction relief, filed
under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. For the reasons that follow,
this court grants review but denies relief.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 A jury convicted Harrison of possession of narcotic drugs for
sale, a Class 2 felony; possession of dangerous drugs, a Class 4 felony; and
possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class 6 felony, all committed in
September 2020 in Flagstaff. Given Harrison’s prior criminal history, the
court sentenced him to concurrent prison terms, the longest of which was
14 years, properly awarding him 227 days of pre-incarceration credit. His
convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal. See State v.
Harrison, 1 CA-CR 23-0065, 2023 WL 5977227, at *2 ¶ 11 (Ariz. App. Sept.
14, 2023) (mem. decision).

¶3 In April 2024, Harrison filed a self-represented notice seeking
post-conviction relief claiming: (1) ineffective assistance of counsel; (2)
newly discovered evidence and (3) actual innocence. See Ariz. R. Crim. P.
32.1(a), (e) & (h). The court appointed counsel, who filed a petition in March
2025 asserting ineffective assistance of counsel. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.1(a).
The petition alleged that trial counsel failed to provide Harrison with all
information necessary to make an informed decision regarding a plea offer.

¶4 The court summarily denied Harrison’s petition, finding that
he “failed to show that the performance of [his] two attorneys fell below
prevailing professional standards” and that neither attorney gave him
erroneous advice nor failed to give him information needed to make an
informed decision. The court did not address the claims he made in his self-
represented petition. Harrison then filed a petition seeking review by this
court.

2
STATE v. HARRISON
Decision of the Court

DISCUSSION

¶5 This court reviews the denial of a post-conviction relief
request for an abuse of discretion. See State v. Bennett, 213 Ariz. 562, 566 ¶
17 (2006) (citing cases). Harrison argues that, under Rule 32.1(a), his trial
counsel was ineffective for failing to “explain relevant legal theories to
[him] when necessary to correct [his] mistaken understanding of the law
and evidence.” He asserts that trial counsel failed to “explain constructive
possession to him” when he “remained fixated on ownership,” which he
alleges constituted a failure to provide information necessary to make an
informed decision regarding a plea offer.

¶6 “To state a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel,
a defendant must show both that counsel’s performance fell below
objectively reasonable standards and that this deficiency prejudiced the
defendant.” Bennett, 213 Ariz. at 567 ¶ 21 (citing Strickland v. Washington,
466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)). A defendant has a right to be informed of the
consequences of accepting or rejecting a plea offer. See State v. Donald, 198
Ariz. 406, 413 ¶ 14 (App. 2000) (citing cases). Harrison has the burden to
show trial counsel either gave him erroneous advice or failed to provide
information necessary to allow him to make an informed decision whether
to accept the plea offer. Id. at ¶ 16 (citing cases).

¶7 Harrison contends that, had trial counsel explained
constructive possession to him, he would have accepted the plea agreement
and claims that explaining to him his low likelihood of success at trial is not
enough to be effective counsel. The record shows, however, that Harrison’s
trial counsel provided him with the information necessary to make an
informed decision whether to accept or reject the plea offer and the
consequences of rejecting it. Among other things, the transcript shows that
trial counsel informed Harrison multiple times of the strength of the State’s
case against him, and that proceeding to trial was a “horrible idea.” Trial
counsel also informed Harrison of the significant prison sentence he faced
if convicted at trial. After receiving this information, however, Harrison
insisted on rejecting the plea offer and proceeding to trial.

¶8 Harrison has not shown that trial counsel provided him with
erroneous advice or failed to provide him with information required to
make an informed decision regarding his plea offer. Harrison was
appraised of the strength of the case against him and the potential
consequences of proceeding to trial. See Donald, 198 Ariz. at 413 ¶ 14 (citing
cases). Trial counsel walked him through the strengths and weaknesses of
the case, including evidence showing his possession of the drugs and

3
STATE v. HARRISON
Decision of the Court

paraphernalia that police found. With that knowledge, Harrison rejected
the State’s plea agreement on two different occasions during a hearing and
proceeded to trial. Harrison has not shown that the performance of trial
counsel was deficient and thus has not shown the superior court erred in
denying his petition for post-conviction relief.

CONCLUSION

¶9 This court grants review but denies relief.

MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court
FILED: JR

4