Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 13-0052 PRPC
09-23-2014
STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. ARTHUR ROY MAYHAN, Petitioner.
COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Diane Meloche Counsel for Respondent Arthur Roy Mayhan, Florence Petitioner in Propria Persona
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED.
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2006-162091-001
The Honorable Andrew G. Klein, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL
Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix
By Diane Meloche
Counsel for Respondent
Arthur Roy Mayhan, Florence
Petitioner in Propria Persona
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Donn Kessler delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Jon W. Thompson and Judge Kent E. Cattani joined.
KESSLER, Judge:
¶1 Petitioner Arthur Roy Mayhan petitions this Court for review from the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. We have considered the petition for review and, for the reasons stated, grant review but deny relief.
¶2 In 2007, Mayhan pled guilty to aggravated taking the identity of another person and the trial court sentenced him to fourteen years' imprisonment. In 2012, Mayhan filed a series of pleadings the trial court consolidated and treated as a successive petition for post-conviction relief. The trial court summarily dismissed the petition and Mayhan now seeks review. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.9(c).
¶3 Most of the issues Mayhan presents for review are not grounds for vacating, reducing, correcting or otherwise changing his convictions and sentences. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.1, 32.2. Mayhan instead complains primarily of alleged wrongs that have occurred since his imprisonment. Mayhan argues the department of corrections lost his legal materials and other personal property; incorrectly classified him; took part in a "disciplinary conspiracy" to deny Mayhan due process during a "disciplinary classification" hearing; and miscalculated the length of his sentence. In his petition, as well as in a pleading filed January 24, 2014 titled "Victim Harassment by Correctional Officers," Mayhan also argues some of his victims are retaliating against him. We deny relief on these issues because these are not cognizable claims for relief under Rule 32.1. In further regard to the sentence, Mayhan offers no evidence the department of corrections has determined the length of his sentence to be anything other than the sentence imposed by the trial court minus the appropriate amount of credit for presentence incarceration.
¶4 Mayhan also argues the trial court should not have consolidated his petition for writ of habeas corpus with the other pleadings and treated it as a petition for post-conviction relief. Mayhan argues this
action was part of a conspiracy by the trial court, an assistant attorney general and the department of corrections to deny Mayhan the ability to obtain relief through a civil habeas proceeding. We deny relief because Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.3 permitted the trial court to treat the petition for writ of habeas corpus as a petition for post-conviction relief. We also note that "[t]he purpose of habeas corpus is release of one unlawfully detained." Sims v. Ryan, 181 Ariz. 330, 332, 890 P.2d 625, 627 (App. 1995). The State is not holding Mayhan beyond the term of his prison sentence. While Mayhan also complained of department of corrections disciplinary proceedings in his habeas petition, "Habeas Corpus is not the appropriate means to order something less than 'absolute release.'" Id. (quoting Long v. Arizona Board of Pardons, 180 Ariz. 490, 494, 885 P.2d 178, 182 (App. 1994) (citation omitted)).
¶5 Finally, Mayhan argues his thumbprint does not appear on the sentencing minute entry and/or that the thumbprint on the sentencing minute entry is not his. We deny relief because the sentencing minute entry contains Mayhan's thumbprint and states that he affixed it to the minute entry in open court. We also deny relief because Mayhan could have raised this issue in a prior post-conviction relief proceeding. Any claim a defendant raised or could have raised in an earlier post-conviction relief proceeding is precluded. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a). None of the exceptions under Rule 32.2(b) apply in this case.
¶6 While the petition for review presents additional issues, Mayhan did not raise those issues in the petition for post-conviction relief he filed below. A petition for review may not present issues not first presented to the trial court. State v. Bortz, 169 Ariz. 575, 577, 821 P.2d 236, 238 (App. 1991); State v. Wagstaff, 161 Ariz. 66, 71, 775 P.2d 1130, 1135 (App. 1988); State v. Ramirez, 126 Ariz. 464, 467, 616 P.2d 924, 927 (App. 1980); see also Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii). Accordingly, we grant review and deny relief.