Opinion
2 CA-CR 2013-0067-PR
04-18-2013
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. ERIC WADE HANSON, Petitioner.
Eric Hanson
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Not for Publication
Rule 111, Rules of
the Supreme Court
PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MARICOPA COUNTY
Cause No. CR2002015098
Honorable Karen L. O'Connor, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
Eric Hanson
Buckeye
In Propria Persona
ESPINOSA, Judge. ¶1 Petitioner Eric Hanson was convicted after a jury trial of one count of robbery and two counts of theft of means of transportation, with two historical prior felony convictions. The convictions and the concurrent prison terms, the longest of which were two eighteen-year terms, were affirmed on appeal. State v. Hanson, No. 1 CA-CR 03-0103 (memorandum decision filed Nov. 6, 2003). Hanson now seeks review of the trial court's order dismissing what appears to have been his fourth notice of 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). Hanson has not met his burden of establishing such abuse here. ¶2 In its minute entry dismissing the notice of post-conviction relief, the trial court correctly identified Hanson's claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and a significant change in the law based on Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.1(a), (g). The court correctly found that any claim of ineffective assistance of counsel would be precluded, see Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a)(3), and that any Blakely-based claim would be patently without merit because Blakely is not retroactively applicable and Hanson's case was final when the Supreme Court decided Blakely on June 24, 2004. Hanson has not persuaded us the court abused its discretion in its ruling, which we adopt. See State v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 274, 866 P.2d 1358, 1360 (App. 1993). His contention that this was his first post-conviction proceeding is belied by the record, and he is mistaken that the court was required to appoint counsel to assist him in this successive proceeding. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.4(c)(2). ¶3 We grant Hanson's petition for review, but for the reasons stated, relief is denied.
We note, too, that Hanson raised the Blakely claim previously and, in its September 27, 2004, minute entry dismissing Hanson's September 10, 2004, notice of post-conviction relief, the trial court rejected the potential claim for the same reason the court rejected the claim in this proceeding. Consequently, the claim also is precluded. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a)(2).
______________
PHILIP G. ESPINOSA, Judge
CONCURRING: ______________
GARYE L. VÁSQUEZ, Presiding Judge
______________
VIRGINIA C. KELLY, Judge