Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2014-0286-PR
11-18-2014
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. CARLOS GODOY, Petitioner.
COUNSEL M. Lando Voyles, Pinal County Attorney By Richard M. Wintory, Deputy County Attorney, Florence Counsel for Respondent Carlos Godoy, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24.
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Pinal County
No. S1100CR16698
The Honorable Joseph R. Georgini, Judge
REVIEW DENIED
COUNSEL
M. Lando Voyles, Pinal County Attorney
By Richard M. Wintory, Deputy County Attorney, Florence
Counsel for Respondent
Carlos Godoy, Florence
In Propria Persona
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Kelly authored the decision of the Court, in which Judge Howard and Judge Espinosa concurred.
KELLY, Judge:
¶1 Petitioner Carlos Godoy seeks review of the trial court's order denying his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. "We will not disturb a trial court's ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief absent a clear abuse of discretion." State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390, ¶ 4, 166 P.3d 945, 948 (App. 2007). Godoy has not sustained his burden of establishing such abuse here.
¶2 After a jury trial, Godoy was convicted of first-degree murder, three counts of kidnapping, and two counts of aggravated assault. The trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for twenty-five years for the murder conviction and concurrent terms of twelve years on the remaining counts, to be served consecutively to the life sentence. This court affirmed his convictions and sentences on appeal. State v. Godoy, No. 2 CA-CR 92-0967 (memorandum decision filed Nov. 7, 1995). Godoy twice petitioned for and was denied post-conviction relief, raising claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel; he did not petition for review of those denials. Godoy then twice filed petitions for a writ of habeas corpus, which the trial court deemed Rule 32 petitions and denied, and this court denied relief on review. State v. Godoy, No. 2 CA-CR 2012-0465-PR (memorandum decision filed Feb. 13, 2013); State v. Godoy, No. 2 CA-CR 97-0437-PR (memorandum decision filed June 9, 1998).
¶3 In 2014, Godoy filed in the superior court two documents entitled "Request for Ruling" and "Request for Order," apparently relating to his request for certain transcripts. The trial court denied the motions. On review Godoy contends the court
abused its discretion and urges us to order "the inferior court to send bill of lading for transcription of Grand Jury Hearing."
¶4 Godoy's requests are not cognizable claims under Rule 32 because they do not implicate his convictions or sentences but rather concern only the alleged post-trial denial of rights. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.1, 32.9(c). Therefore, we deny review.