A Sierra Vista man serving nearly 40 years in prison for multiple drug offenses has been given two months to demonstrate to a judge why he is entitled to post-conviction relief, even though his court-appointed attorney found no claims which warrant further review.
Usef Latrice Simmons was arrested in 2013 following a multi-agency investigation into the sale of methamphetamine in the Sierra Vista area. He was convicted in 2014 and sentenced to 39 years in prison on charges that included transportation of meth for sale, possession with intent to distribute, possession of marijuana, and engaging in the sale of meth.
In 2018, Simmons was assigned an attorney to review his case for any claims that could be raised in a petition for post-conviction relief (PCR). Such claims are handled by the sentencing court and can include ineffective assistance of counsel, newly discovered evidence, or a substantive change of law.
On June 25, 2020, the attorney advised Judge James Conlogue of the Cochise County Superior Court that she “has found no claims which could be raised” under a post-conviction petition. It took the attorney 21 months to complete the review.
Simmons, 32, now has until Sept. 30 to file his own petition with Conlogue setting forth any claims he believes require further court review.
Court records show Simmons was initially found guilty by a jury of 11 drug-related offenses, transportation of methamphetamine for sale, possession with intent to distribute, and possession of marijuana. He was sentenced by Conlogue in May 2014, but the Arizona Court of Appeal later voided five of the convictions based on insufficient evidence to support those charges.
The dismissed charges involved engaging in electronic or wire communications in connection to felony drug offenses.
The court of appeals sent the case back to Conlogue, who ordered Simmons to serve 39 years for the remaining six convictions. That’s because Conlogue imposed the 2014 sentence with a series of consecutive and concurrent sentences, so wiping out the five communications charges didn’t alter the overall number of years Simmons must serve.
Simmons then appealed the revised sentencing order and Conlogue’s use of consecutive sentences. In October 2017, the court of appeals affirmed the trial judge’s ruling.
“Here, we conclude that the trial court acted within its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences,” decision reads. “The only sentences that were imposed consecutive to one another dealt with offenses committed days apart from one another. For the forgoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s sentences.”
In July 2018. Simmons filed his notice of post-conviction relief and asked for appointment of counsel. With the attorney’s no-claims report now on file, Conlogue issued an order last week giving Simmons until the end of September to file his own petition if he would like.
If Simmons fails to file a petition he could be restricted in making claims to the court in the future.
Simmons was sentenced as a category three repetitive offender based on felony convictions for a 2008 drug charge and a 2011 disorderly conduct with a weapon case. He must serve 85 percent of his sentences before he can be eligible for release from custody, which would be December 2048.
