Opinion
2 CA-CR 2023-0033-PR
02-28-2023
The State of Arizona, Respondent, v. William J. Conway Jr., Petitioner.
William J. Conway Jr., Kingman In Propria Persona
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2016104825002DT The Honorable Jennifer Ryan-Touhill, Judge
William J. Conway Jr., Kingman
In Propria Persona
Judge Gard authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Eppich and Chief Judge Vásquez concurred.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
GARD, Judge:
¶1 William Conway Jr. seeks review of the trial court's ruling summarily dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 33, Ariz. R. Crim. P. We deny review.
¶2 Pursuant to a 2018 plea agreement, Conway was convicted of molestation of a child and two counts of attempted sexual conduct with a minor. The trial court sentenced him to a prison term of twelve years, followed by lifetime probation. Conway initiated a proceeding for post-conviction relief, and appointed counsel filed a notice that she had reviewed the record and was "unable to find any claims for relief." After Conway failed to file a pro se petition, the court dismissed the proceeding in April 2019.
¶3 In July 2022, Conway simultaneously filed a successive notice of and petition for post-conviction relief, asserting claims pursuant to Rule 33.1(a), (e), and (g). He maintained that several of his constitutional rights had been violated, and he relied on a news report and documents from the Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct to argue that "misconduct" by the judge who had sentenced him constituted a newly discovered material fact. Lastly, he asserted, in part, that amendments to A.R.S. §§ 13-702(A) and 13-902 constituted a significant change in the law.
¶4 In September 2022, the trial court summarily dismissed Conway's petition. It concluded that his Rule 33.1(a) claims were untimely and precluded. The court also pointed out that, by entering a guilty plea, Conway had waived all non-jurisdictional defects. See State v. Quick, 177 Ariz. 314, 316 (App. 1993). As to Rule 33.1(e), the court determined that Conway had failed to "provide any material facts that probably would have changed his convictions or punishments," noting that none of the documents he had relied upon "existed at the time of [his] conviction and sentencing." See State v. Amaral, 239 Ariz. 217, ¶ 9 (2016) (describing requirements for claim of newly discovered material facts). The court also found "no indication that it [had] sentenced [Conway] as a repetitive offender" under § 13-702 and determined that amendments to § 13-902(E) did not change the probation terms in this case, such that his Rule 33.1(g) claims did not warrant relief. In conclusion, the court observed that Conway had failed to "assert substantive claims and adequately explain why the claims are untimely." See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 33.2(b)(1). This petition for review followed.
¶5 In his petition for review, Conway asks this court to review the trial court's "boiler plate" ruling and "grant in favor of [his] request." But he fails to develop any cognizable legal argument. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 33.16(c)(2)(B), (D). He also fails to cite any legal authority or record references supporting his position. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 33.16(c)(2)(C)-(D). His failure to comply with our rules or present any 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).
¶6 Accordingly, we deny review.