Opinion
2 CA-CR 2022-0061-PR
07-27-2022
The State of Arizona, Respondent, v. Kenneth Carl Beatty, Petitioner.
Kenneth Carl Beatty, Sierra Vista In Propria Persona
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Cochise County No. CR201400381 The Honorable John F. Kelliher Jr., Judge
Kenneth Carl Beatty, Sierra Vista
In Propria Persona
Chief Judge Vásquez authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Eckerstrom and Judge Espinosa concurred.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
VÁSQUEZ, CHIEF JUDGE:
¶1 Kenneth Beatty seeks review of the trial court's order denying his successive petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. We deny review.
¶2 After a jury trial, Beatty was convicted of second-degree trafficking in stolen property and placed on a three-year term of probation. In the same case, he pled guilty to possession of a narcotic drug and received a concurrent, three-year probation term. We affirmed his trafficking conviction and the trial court's disposition, modifying the disposition minute entry to correct the date of his trafficking offense to October 4, 2012, instead of September 23, 2012. State v. Beatty, No. 2 CA-CR 2015-0391 (Ariz. App. Aug. 26, 2016) (mem. decision). In February 2018, Beatty admitted violating the terms of his probation; the trial court revoked probation on both convictions and sentenced him to concurrent, 2.25-year prison terms.
¶3 Beatty has twice previously sought and been denied post-conviction relief but did not seek review of those rulings. He then sought review in this court of the trial court's decision to take no action in the face of numerous letters he had sent the court. This court denied review. State v. Beatty, No. 2 CA-CR 2019-0124 (Ariz. App. Aug. 20, 2019) (mem. decision).
¶4 In June 2021, Beatty again sought post-conviction relief, generally asserting his innocence and that there were newly discovered material facts supporting his claims of misconduct by police, the state, and his own counsel. The trial court summarily dismissed Beatty's petition, noting both its untimeliness and Beatty's "fail[ure] to prove there is new evidence." This petition for review followed.
¶5 Like his petition below, Beatty's petition for review contains a lengthy narrative in which he alleges he was falsely accused and detailing numerous instances of purported official misconduct. However, most of this discussion is not supported by citation to the record. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.16(c)(2)(C). Nor does he develop any cognizable legal argument that his claims may be raised in a successive post-conviction proceeding brought years after his convictions. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.4(b)(3), 32.16(c)(2)(D).
¶6 The failure to comply with our rules or present meaningful argument justifies our summary denial of review. See State v. French, 198 Ariz. 119, ¶ 9 (App. 2000) (summarily rejecting claims not complying with rules governing form and content of petitions for review), disapproved on other grounds by Stewart v. Smith, 202 Ariz. 446, ¶ 10 (2002); see also State v. Stefanovich, 232 Ariz. 154, ¶ 16 (App. 2013) (insufficient argument waives claim).
¶7 Review is denied.