A man convicted in Pima County more than two decades ago of committing multiple counts of sexual misconduct with a minor in the late 1990s has failed at his latest attempt to have the Arizona Court of Appeals overturn his 125-year prison sentence.
Warren Frank Stafford was found guilty at trial of seven dangerous crimes against children. He was sentenced in 2002, with the prison time for each count having to be served consecutive, or back-to-back.
That gives Stafford a sentence expiration release date in 2125, more than a century from now.
Stafford, who is in his early 60s, has filed numerous challenges to his sentence over the years, most recently in January. His latest petition for post-conviction relief argues a similar theme – that Stafford was improperly sentenced.
According to the petition, Stafford contends he should have been sentenced in 2002 under Arizona’s more lenient first-time felony offender law instead of the more severe statute for dangerous crimes against children.
Judge Kimberly H. Ortiz of the Pima County Superior Court summarily dismissed the January petition, ruling that Stafford’s claims were precluded from consideration as they were previously rejected in other petitions for post-conviction relief.
Ortiz also noted Stafford failed to explain why his claim, if not precluded, was not raised timely given the two decade span since Stafford was sentenced. Stafford then appealed.
According to the July 6 unanimous decision authored by Judge Christopher J. O’Neil, the appellate court will not disturb Ortiz’s ruling unless the court abused its discretion.
“Thus, insofar as Stafford again attacks the constitutionality of his sentences or the court’s jurisdiction to impose them, those claims are precluded,” O’Neil wrote.
However, the appellate decision also notes finding no record that Stafford previously raised his statutory argument. As such, it is not subject to preclusion on waiver grounds, O’Neil wrote.
Yet to raise that claim in 2023, Stafford would have had to explain why he failed to raise the issue in his myriad prior petitions.
“The only explanation Stafford has offered is the ineffectiveness of his previous attorneys,” O’Neill wrote. “But that does not explain his failure to raise this argument in his previous pro se proceedings despite discussing Arizona sentencing law in prior proceedings.”
The appellate decision then went one step further in its consideration of the January petition.
“Even if we disregard Stafford’s failure to adequately explain why he did not raise his statutory sentencing claim sooner, he is not entitled to relief,” O’Neill wrote, adding that Stafford “is incorrect” in believing his lack of prior convictions meant he should have been sentenced to spend decades less time in prison.
“We grant review but deny relief,” O’Neil wrote.