He also alleged that he had provided evidence “sufficient to establish that no reasonable fact-finder” would find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. B A I L E Y, Judge: ♡ Ten years after his first petition for post-conviction relief (“PCR”) was dismissed, Michael Traverso filed a second PCR petition under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure (“Rule”) 32 alleging ineffective assistance of counsel (“IAC”) during plea bargaining and that he was completely deprived of counsel as provided in United States v.

Gass concurred in part and dissented in part. Bailey delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Samuel A. TRAVERSO Opinion of the Court OPINION Judge Cynthia J. Voepel Co-Counsel for Respondent/Cross-Petitioner Arizona Justice Project, Phoenix By Randal Boyd McDonald Co-Counsel for Respondent/Cross-Petitioner STATE v. Kimerer Co-Counsel for Respondent/Cross-Petitioner Jones Skelton & Hochuli PLC, Phoenix By Lori L. CR2006-160536-001 The Honorable Katherine Cooper, Judge REVIEW GRANTED PETITION FOR RELIEF GRANTED CROSSPETITION FOR RELIEF DENIED COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Daniel Strange Counsel for Petitioner/Cross-Respondent Kimerer Law Group PC, Phoenix By Michael D.

1 CA-CR 22-0174 PRPC FILED 9-26-2023 Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. MICHAEL EUGENE TRAVERSO, Respondent/Cross-Petitioner. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, Petitioner/Cross-Respondent, v.

Michael traverso mchs