Full 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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, v. JAMES ALEXANDER PORRELLO, Petitioner. No. 1 CA-CR 26-0026 PRPC FILED 11-06-2026 Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Mohave County No. CR-2022-00296 The Honorable Billy K. Sipe, Jr., Judge Pro Tempore REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED COUNSEL Mohave County Attorney’s Office, Kingman By Amanda K. Claerhout Counsel for Respondent James Alexander Porrello Pro se STATE v. PORRELLO Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Jennifer M. Perkins delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Brian Y. Furuya and Judge D. Andrew Gaona joined. P E R K I N S, Judge: ¶1 James Porrello seeks review of the superior court’s dismissal of his post-conviction relief (“PCR”) petition filed under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure (“Rule”) 32.1, in which he claimed ineffective assistance of counsel (“IAC”). We grant review but deny relief. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 Porrello met two men with a shotgun when they came to repossess his truck after he failed to make payments on it. State v. Porrello, 1 CA-CR 23-0242, 2024 WL 1406142, at *1 ¶ 2 (Ariz. App. Apr. 2, 2024) (mem. decision). After Porrello asked the men for paperwork showing their repossession was lawful, they went to retrieve their credentials but then decided to take the truck. Id. at *1 ¶¶ 2–3. When Porrello heard the tow truck start, he grabbed his AR-15 and opened fire. Id. at *1 ¶ 3. Some shots hit the tow truck, but none hit the men. Id. ¶3 A grand jury charged Porrello with two counts of disorderly conduct involving a weapon (Class 6 felonies) and two counts of aggravated assault (dangerous Class 3 felonies). ¶4 At the settlement conference before trial, the State offered Porrello to plead guilty to one charge of aggravated assault (non-dangerous Class 3) with prison or probation up to the sentencing judge’s discretion. The State later offered to “take prison off the table” if Porrello pled guilty to two counts of aggravated assault and agreed to probation and at least six months of jail time. The State clarified Porrello could choose between either offer, but Porrello responded he did not want to take any offer with prison time. ¶5 The settlement judge repeatedly encouraged Porrello to take one of the offers and warned him he could face at least two consecutive five-year prison terms if the jury found him guilty. He rejected the offers, and the jury convicted him as charged. The court imposed the minimum 2 STATE v. PORRELLO Decision of the Court sentence for the aggravated assault convictions and dismissed the other charges. We affirmed Porrello’s convictions and sentences on appeal. Id. at *1 ¶ 1. ¶6 Porrello filed a timely PCR notice and petition, in which he raised several IAC claims. The court found two claims colorable and ordered an evidentiary hearing for Porrello’s claims that his trial counsel failed to explain (1) the State’s plea offers and (2) the legal defenses to his charges. The court dismissed his other IAC claims. ¶7 At the evidentiary hearing, Porrello testified he received only one plea offer and would have taken any offer without prison time had he known about it. He also testified that his traumatic brain injury from his military service prevents him from comprehending certain information. Porrello admitted his trial counsel told him there was a possibility of conviction at trial but asserted she did not encourage him to accept any plea offer. His sister and brother testified Porrello never informed them of the offer, even though they regularly communicated with him about the case. Porrello’s trial counsel testified that she explained the offers and legal defenses several times, and he appeared to comprehend them. She also testified that she advised him not to go to trial. ¶8 After the evidentiary hearing, the court dismissed Porrello’s remaining claims. Porrello timely petitioned for review, and we have jurisdiction. A.R.S. § 13-4239(C), Rule 32.16. DISCUSSION ¶9 We review the superior court’s denial of a PCR petition for an abuse of discretion. State v. Macias, 249 Ariz. 335, 339 ¶ 8 (App. 2020). We review the court’s factual findings from evidentiary hearings for clear error, State v. King, 250 Ariz. 433, 438 ¶ 21 (App. 2021), and legal conclusions de novo, State v. Denz, 232 Ariz. 441, 444 ¶ 6 (App. 2013). ¶10 Porrello asks us to review the claims the superior court found colorable but dismissed after the hearing. He also asks us to review his claims that trial counsel failed to (1) file a Rule 11 motion for incompetency to stand trial, (2) present evidence of his mental health issues at sentencing, and (3) investigate and disclose his mental health issues and hire a mental health expert. ¶11 The superior court must order an evidentiary hearing for all colorable claims, which are claims that allege facts which, assuming them as true, would probably change the verdict or sentence. State v. Amaral, 239 3 STATE v. PORRELLO Decision of the Court Ariz. 217, 219–20 ¶¶ 10–11 (2016). The petitioner “must present more than a conclusory assertion” and instead “provide specific factual allegations” supported by sworn statements. State v. Donald, 198 Ariz. 406, 413 ¶ 17 (App. 2000). Otherwise, the court must summarily dismiss the claims. Amaral, 239 Ariz. at 220 ¶ 11. ¶12 For a convicted defendant to prevail on an IAC claim, the defendant must show a reasonable probability that, but for the trial counsel’s deficient performance, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687–88, 694 (1984). In Arizona, deficient performance includes when trial counsel fails to adequately communicate the plea offer or consequences of conviction to the defendant. Donald, 198 Ariz. at 413 ¶ 17. Thus, counsel has a duty to adequately communicate the terms and relative merits of the offer compared to the defendant’s chances at trial before the defendant decides whether to accept or reject a plea offer. Id. at 411, 413 ¶¶ 9, 14. If counsel fails to do either, the court must order the State to reinstate the plea offer or a new trial. Id. at 418 ¶¶ 44, 45. ¶13 The superior court did not err in dismissing Porrello’s claims that his trial counsel failed to inform him about the plea offer and legal defenses after the evidentiary hearing. ¶14 Porrello wants us to consider that his mental health issues made it difficult to understand the plea offers and legal defenses. But the superior court heard from Porrello, his brother, and his sister regarding his mental health issues and determined he could understand the plea offers and legal defenses. We do not evaluate witness credibility, King, 250 Ariz. at 439 ¶ 21, so we affirm the superior court’s dismissal of these claims. ¶15 The superior court also did not err in dismissing the remaining claims before the evidentiary hearing. ¶16 Porrello claims his trial counsel did not present medical records as mitigating evidence to the superior court at sentencing. Porrello is incorrect. The court found his mental health issues as mitigating factors and imposed the minimum sentence for each aggravated assault conviction. Thus, we affirm the superior court’s dismissal of this claim. ¶17 Regarding his Rule 11 claim, Porrello explicitly states he is not incompetent. The superior court believed Porrello could understand the nature of the proceeding, and the superior court has “broad discretion” in determining whether to order a Rule 11 examination. See State v. Salazar, 128 Ariz. 461, 462 (1981). Porrello also does not allege how additional 4 STATE v. PORRELLO Decision of the Court investigation, disclosure, or a medical expert would make him incompetent to stand trial or change the verdict. Thus, we affirm the superior court’s dismissal of the remaining claims. CONCLUSION ¶18 We grant review but deny relief. MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court FILED: JR 5