Not for Publication – Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2004-137144-001 DT The Honorable Paul J. McMurdie, Judge
Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By E. Catherine Leisch Counsel for Respondent
Kimerer & Derrick, P.C., Phoenix By Michael D. Kimerer Counsel for Petitioner
Judge Maurice Portley delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Margaret H. Downie and Judge Patricia A. Orozco joined.
¶1 Petitioner Chris Michael Alonso petitions this court to review the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. We have considered the petition for review and grant review, but for the reasons stated, deny relief.
¶2 Alonso was tried and a jury found him guilty of first degree murder, drive-by shooting, and five counts of attempted first degree murder. He was subsequently sentenced to life in prison with a possibility of release after twenty-five years for first degree murder; 12.5 years in prison for the first count of attempted first degree murder; and 10.5 years in prison for each remaining count. The trial court ordered the sentence for the first count of attempted first degree murder and the sentence for drive-by shooting to run concurrently, and all other sentences to run consecutively. The court also ordered that Alonso serve the sentence for murder last. Finally, the court ordered that Alonso serve all of the sentences in this case consecutive to the sentences imposed in two other unrelated cases.
¶3 Alonso filed an appeal and we affirmed his convictions and sentences on direct appeal. Alonso now seeks review of the summary dismissal of his first petition for post-conviction relief as well as a supplemental petition for post-conviction relief. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure ("Rule") 32.9(c) and Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") section 13-4239(C) (2010).
II. Issues Presented for Review
¶4 Alonso presents three issues for review. He argues: (1) the trial court erred by denying his motion to change counsel; (2) both his trial counsel were ineffective when they failed to request a "second shooter" instruction before jury deliberations began; and (3) his appellate counsel was ineffective when counsel failed to raise an issue regarding the trial court's refusal to give a "second shooter" instruction after deliberations began.
III. Denial of the Motion to Change Counsel
¶5 Alonso argues the trial court erred by denying his motions for new counsel during his trial. He raised the issue on direct appeal, and we found no error. As a result, any claim a defendant raised or could have raised on ...