State v. Fields

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

CHRISTOPHER ALLEN FIELDS, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 25-0294 PRPC
FILED 04-02-2026

Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County
Nos. S1300CR202480005, S1300CR202480140,
S1300CR202480141, S1300CR202480148
The Honorable Michael R. Bluff, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Yavapai County Attorney’s Office, Prescott
By Dennis M. McGrane
Counsel for Respondent

Christopher Allen Fields, Eloy
Petitioner
STATE v. FIELDS
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Vice Chief Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court,
in which Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown and Judge Veronika Fabian
joined.

W E I N Z W E I G, Vice Chief Judge:

¶1 Petitioner Christopher Allen Fields seeks review of the
superior court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief
(“PCR”). We grant review but deny relief.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Fields entered into a global plea agreement for four cases. He
pled guilty to 11 crimes. The superior court sentenced him to 10.5 years in
prison. He filed a PCR petition, which the court denied. Fields was
prevented from timely petitioning this court for review, and the superior
court allowed a delayed filing in the interest of justice.

DISCUSSION

¶3 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will
not disturb the superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction
relief. State v. Reed, 252 Ariz. 236, 238, ¶ 6 (App. 2021). The petitioner bears
the burden to establish that the court abused its discretion. See State v.
Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 538, ¶ 1 (App. 2011).

¶4 Fields argues relief should be granted because he received
ineffective assistance from counsel. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 33.1(a).

I. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel.

¶5 To prove ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner must
(1) “demonstrate that counsel’s conduct fell below an objective standard of
reasonableness” and (2) “that he was prejudiced thereby.” State v. Bigger,
251 Ariz. 402, 407, ¶ 8 (2021) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668,
687–88 (1984)). “Failure to satisfy either prong of the Strickland test is fatal
to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.” State v. Bennett, 213 Ariz. 562,
567, ¶ 21 (2006). When it comes to plea negotiations, Fields must prove his
lawyer either (1) gave erroneous advice or (2) failed to give information

2
STATE v. FIELDS
Decision of the Court

necessary to allow the petitioner to make an informed decision whether to
accept the plea. State v. Donald, 198 Ariz. 406, 413, ¶ 16 (App. 2000). A
defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing if they present a colorable
claim for relief. State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 578, ¶ 25 (2012).

A. Objective Standard of Reasonableness.

¶6 Fields argues that his attorney’s conduct fell below an
objective standard of reasonableness because he never received any police
reports, witness statements, video or other evidence. To state a colorable
claim, the petitioner must allege “specific facts which would allow a court
to meaningfully assess why [counsel’s] deficiency was material to the plea
decision.” State v. Bowers, 192 Ariz. 419, 425, ¶ 25 (App. 1998). The superior
court found that Fields did not meet this burden because he (1) generally
objected to a lack of disclosure, (2) never identified any particular police
report, witness statement, video or other evidence, and (3) never explained
how these disclosures would have changed his decision to enter the plea
agreement. According to the court, “[s]uch generalizations and
unsubstantiated claims do not establish that counsel’s performance fell
below any objectively reasonable standards.” See also State v. Borbon, 146
Ariz. 392, 399 (1985) (“Rule 32 does not require the trial court to conduct
evidentiary hearings based on mere generalizations and unsubstantiated
claims that people exist who would give favorable testimony.”). We find
no abuse of discretion.

¶7 To show deficient performance in the plea-bargaining
process, the petitioner must prove that counsel’s advice was either
erroneous or that counsel failed to provide the necessary information for
the petitioner to make an informed decision about whether to accept the
plea. Donald, 198 Ariz. at 413, ¶ 16. He proves neither. The record shows
Fields entered into the plea agreement knowingly, intelligently and
voluntarily. The superior court found that counsel accurately provided the
court with a factual basis for each of the ten counts. The court said that
while counsel may have been confused as to the eleventh count, that “does
not demonstrate his deficiency in this matter.” We find no abuse of
discretion.

B. Prejudice.

¶8 “To establish prejudice in the context of a plea agreement, a
defendant must show a reasonable probability that except for his lawyer’s
error he would not have waived his right to trial and entered a plea.” State
v. Banda, 232 Ariz. 582, 585, ¶ 12 (App. 2013) (quoting State v. Ysea, 191 Ariz.

3
STATE v. FIELDS
Decision of the Court

372, 377, ¶ 17 (1998) (superseded by statute on other grounds)). As noted,
the superior court questioned Fields separately for each count in each case
and found that he entered the plea deal knowingly, intelligently and
voluntarily. Nothing in Fields’ petition below suggests he would have
rejected the plea agreement had there been disclosure and had every
objection been preserved. Fields has not shown prejudice.

CONCLUSION

¶9 We grant review and deny relief.

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

4