Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2017-0316-PR
02-12-2018
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. JORGE CARLOS CENTENO-SARABIA, Petitioner.
Jorge Carlos Centeno-Sarabia, Florence In Propria Persona
THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.19(e). Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2008147702001DT
The Honorable Sherry K. Stephens, Judge
REVIEW DENIED
Jorge Carlos Centeno-Sarabia, Florence
In Propria Persona
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Brearcliffe authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Staring and Chief Judge Eckerstrom concurred. BREARCLIFFE, Judge:
¶1 Petitioner Jorge Centeno-Sarabia seeks review of the trial court's orders denying his motion for a new trial, his motion for reconsideration of that ruling, and his motion for an extension of time to file a petition for post-conviction relief, all related to a proceeding he initiated by a notice of post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. Because we lack authority to review the preliminary rulings challenged by Centeno-Sarabia, we deny review.
¶2 Centeno-Sarabia filed a notice for post-conviction relief on July 21, 2015, shortly before this court issued its mandate affirming his convictions and sentences for one count of sexual abuse and two counts of sexual conduct with a minor. See State v. Centeno-Sarabia, No. 1 CA-CR 11-0803, ¶¶ 1, 30 (Ariz. App. Dec. 11, 2014) (mem. decision). Based on the record before us, he has not filed a petition for post-conviction relief in the trial court.
¶3 On November 23, 2016, Centeno-Sarabia filed a "Motion For a New Trial" citing Rule 7(g), Arizona Superior Court Rules of Appellate Procedure—Criminal, and alleging "[h]is right to an appeal has been compromised by his inability to get acces[s] to the record on appeal." The trial court denied the motion on December 14, 2016, finding Rule 7(g) "does not apply to his case" and noting that he "has no further right of appeal." The court further concluded, "[Centeno-Sarabia]'s pleadings do not establish that the record is insufficient for him to pursue post-conviction proceedings under Rule 32." On January 5, 2017, the court denied Centeno-Sarabia's motion for reconsideration of that ruling, as well as his request for a thirty-day extension of time to file his Rule 32 petition.
The trial court had previously ordered that his petition was to be filed "no later than November 28, 2016." --------
¶4 In addressing Centeno-Sarabia's request for additional time, the trial court first stated that "[t]here is no authority for this court to grant such an extension," but it added, "Defendant may file a petition as provided in Rule 32, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the Court will consider the petition upon submission. The Court cannot evaluate whether such a petition is timely without knowing the grounds for which post-conviction relief is requested." Centeno-Sarabia then filed a petition for review of the court's denial of his motion for a new trial and its denial of his motion for reconsideration.
¶5 Rule 32.9(c)(1)(A) provides that an aggrieved party may seek appellate review "of the trial court's final decision" in a post-conviction relief proceeding. But on the record before us, no "final decision" has been entered or presented for review. The court's order of January 5, 2017—the most recent order before us—is not final. Although the court denied Centeno-Sarabia's request for an extension of time in that order, it did not dismiss the Rule 32 proceeding. Indeed, in stating that he "may file a petition" and that "the Court will consider the petition upon submission," the court clearly contemplated further action in this matter. Rule 32.9 authorizes our review of final decisions by the trial court, but provides no authority for us to review preliminary rulings such as those challenged here.
¶6 Accordingly, we deny review.