State v. Bell

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

NANCY CATHLEEN BELL, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 25-0457 PRPC
FILED 04-09-2026

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Coconino County
No. CR2022-00552
The Honorable Ted Stuart Reed, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

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

Nancy Cathleen Bell, Goodyear
Petitioner
STATE v. BELL
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 Nancy Cathleen Bell seeks review of the superior
court’s order denying her first petition for post-conviction relief.

¶2 The State indicted Bell for second degree murder, a class 1
felony, and child abuse, a class 2 felony. Early in the case, Bell’s counsel
filed a motion to dismiss the charges or remand to the grand jury for a new
probable cause finding under Rule 12.9, Arizona Rules of Criminal
Procedure. Bell and the State later stipulated to stay the motion while they
negotiated a potential plea agreement. Because Bell ultimately pled guilty
to the second degree murder count, the superior court never ruled on the
motion.

¶3 Following Bell’s guilty plea, the superior court sentenced Bell
to a flat time sentence of 18 years in prison with credit for time served. That
sentence was within the range to which Bell agreed in the plea agreement.

¶4 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, the court will
not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief.
State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577 ¶ 19 (2012). Bell bears the burden of
showing the superior court abused its discretion by denying her petition.
See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 538 ¶ 1 (App. 2011).

¶5 The court reviewed the record in this matter, the superior
court’s order denying Bell’s petition for post-conviction relief, Bell’s
petition for review, and the State’s response. For 3 reasons, the court denies
Bell relief.

1. The superior court did not abuse its discretion in denying the relief
Bell requested. She simply asked the superior court “to take a second
look at [her] charge . . . and sentence.” In denying the petition, the
superior court said, “The Defendant’s claims fail to present a
material issue of fact or law which would entitle the Defendant to
relief.” Because Bell failed to assert any grounds supporting relief

2
STATE v. BELL
Decision of the Court

under Rule 33, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, the superior
court did not abuse its discretion.

2. Though Bell’s petition here asks for relief based on prosecutorial
misconduct arising out of the indictment, she waived that issue by
not raising it before the superior court in her petition. See Ariz. R.
Crim. P. 33.16(c)(2)(B); State v. Ramirez, 126 Ariz. 464, 468 (App. 1980)
(holding appellate court will not consider post-conviction issues the
superior court did not decide).

3. Bell waived any non-jurisdictional defects (including any in the
indictment) when she pled guilty and agreed to the factual basis. See
State v. Chavez, 243 Ariz. 313, 318 ¶ 14 (App. 2017) (“A defendant
who pleads guilty waives the right to assert on review all non-
jurisdictional defenses, including deprivations of constitutional
rights.”).

¶6 The court thus grants review and denies relief.

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

3