State v. Jensen - Arizona Court of Appeals Opinion

Arizona Court of Appeals

Filed March 2nd, 2026

Detected March 3rd, 2026

Summary

The Arizona Court of Appeals denied Michael Jensen's petition for review of a lower court's dismissal of his post-conviction relief petition. This marks Jensen's seventh such proceeding, with the court finding no abuse of discretion in the dismissal.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The Arizona Court of Appeals, in a non-precedential decision (1 CA-CR 25-0386 PRPC), has denied Michael Jensen's petition for review of the superior court's order dismissing his seventh post-conviction relief petition. The court found that Jensen failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion by the lower court, specifically addressing and rejecting claims related to newly discovered evidence, timeliness, waiver, and the interpretation of dangerousness elements in DCAC offenses.

This decision means that the superior court's dismissal stands, and Jensen's post-conviction relief efforts have been unsuccessful on review. For legal professionals and courts, this case reinforces the preclusion rules for repetitive claims and the standard of review for post-conviction relief. No specific compliance actions are required for regulated entities as this is a specific criminal case outcome.

Source document (simplified)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 2, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

State v. Jensen

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Citations: None known
Docket Number: 1 CA-CR 25-0386 PRPC
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Opinion
Authorities (5)
Cited By (0)
Summaries (0)
Similar Cases (0)
PDF

Combined Opinion

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

MICHAEL JENSEN, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 25-0386 PRPC
FILED 03-02-2026

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2004-020949-001
The Honorable Margaret LaBianca, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Philip D. Garrow
Counsel for Respondent

Michael Jensen, Florence
Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma, Judge Andrew J. Becke and Judge
Andrew M. Jacobs delivered the decision of the Court.
STATE v. JENSEN
Decision of the Court

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner Michael Jensen seeks review of the superior court’s
order dismissing his notice and petition for post-conviction relief under
Rule 32 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. This is petitioner’s
seventh post-conviction relief proceeding.

¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will
not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a request for post-conviction relief.
State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577 ¶ 19 (2012). It is petitioner’s burden to
show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying relief. See
State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 538 ¶ 1 (App. 2011).

¶3 This court has reviewed the record in this matter, the superior
court’s order dismissing the petition and the petition for review. This court
finds that Jensen has not shown the superior court abused its discretion.

¶4 First, Jensen’s claim asserting newly discovered evidence
under Rule 32.1(e) – relating to an alleged alibi – has been raised in five
previous PCR proceedings based on substantially the same evidence he
now alleges is newly discovered. Accordingly, these alibi-based claims are
precluded. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a)(2) & (b). Second, Jensen’s arguments
that the court erred by finding his claims were untimely and had been
waived fail because the court addressed his claims on the merits. Third, the
court correctly rejected Jensen’s argument that dangerousness is a
necessary element of DCAC offenses. Fourth, the few Arizona Supreme
Court cases recognizing fact-specific exceptions to mandatory DCAC
sentencing do not render the entire DCAC scheme void, as Jensen argues.
See State v. Davis, 206 Ariz. 377 (2003); State v. Bartlett, 164 Ariz. 229 (1990),
vacated, 501 U.S. 1246 (1991), on remand, 171 Ariz. 302 (1992).