Background
Michael Lee Riehle was convicted after a jury trial of two counts of disorderly conduct with a weapon, possession of dangerous drugs, and possession of drug paraphernalia. The charges arose after Riehle fired a rifle toward two people outside his home; police later found weapons, shell casings, methamphetamine, and drug paraphernalia in the residence.
On direct appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions but vacated and remanded the sentences because the superior court had treated the disorderly-conduct convictions as non-dangerous without a jury finding. While further review of that appeal was pending, Riehle sought post-conviction relief, alleging several instances of ineffective assistance by trial counsel. After an evidentiary hearing, the superior court dismissed the petition.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals granted review but denied relief. It held that Riehle did not include transcripts from the PCR evidentiary hearing or a related status conference in the appellate record. Because an appellant must provide a record adequate to resolve the issues raised, the court presumed the missing transcripts supported the superior court’s ruling.
The court also concluded that Riehle had not shown prejudice under Strickland, even assuming counsel’s performance was deficient. Evidence concerning bullet holes inside Riehle’s house was ancillary because both victims testified that he fired at them while outside. The court further found no prejudicial effect from counsel’s failure to object to alleged hearsay or other-act evidence, given the trial evidence and counsel’s use of the protective-order testimony to challenge a victim’s credibility.
Key Takeaways
- A PCR petitioner must ensure that necessary hearing transcripts are included in the appellate record.
- Missing portions of the record are presumed to support the superior court’s ruling.
- An ineffective-assistance claim fails without a reasonable probability that counsel’s alleged errors changed the result.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the procedural importance of building a complete record in Arizona PCR review. It also illustrates that alleged investigative or evidentiary errors will not warrant relief absent a concrete showing of prejudice tied to the convictions.