Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 13-0883 PRPC
05-21-2015
STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. DURRAN LATROY MCINTOSH, Petitioner.
COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Robert E. Prather Counsel for Respondent Durran Latroy McIntosh, Tucson Petitioner
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2010-140880-001
The Honorable Bruce R. Cohen, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix
By Robert E. Prather
Counsel for Respondent
Durran Latroy McIntosh, Tucson
Petitioner
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop and Judge Donn Kessler joined. THUMMA, Judge:
¶1 Petitioner Durran Latroy McIntosh seeks review of the superior court's order denying his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1 (2015). Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will not disturb a superior court's ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief. State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577 ¶ 19, 278 P.3d 1276, 1280 (2012). Finding no such error, this court grants review but denies relief.
Absent material revisions after the relevant dates, statutes and rules cited refer to the current version unless otherwise indicated.
¶2 A jury convicted McIntosh of possession or use of dangerous drugs. Given his criminal history, the superior court sentenced McIntosh to 10 years in prison and his conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal. State v. McIntosh, 1 CA-CR 11-0670 (Ariz. App. Mar. 20, 2012) (mem. decision.). McIntosh now seeks review of the summary dismissal of his second notice of post-conviction relief. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.9(c).
¶3 The petition for review presents two issues. McIntosh contends one of his trial attorneys was ineffective in failing to adequately advise McIntosh about a plea offer that caused McIntosh to reject the offer. He also argues a different trial attorney was ineffective in failing to inform McIntosh of another plea offer. McIntosh, however, raised these same issues in his first post-conviction relief proceeding. Any claim a defendant raised or could have raised in an earlier post-conviction relief proceeding is precluded. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a). No exception to this preclusive rule applies here. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b).
¶4 While the petition for review with this court presents additional issues, McIntosh did not raise those issues in the petition for post-conviction relief filed with the superior court. A petition for review may not present issues the petitioner did not first present to the superior court. State v. Ramirez, 126 Ariz. 464, 467, 616 P.2d 924, 927 (App. 1980); State v. Wagstaff, 161 Ariz. 66, 71, 775 P.2d 1130, 1135 (App. 1988); State v. Bortz, 169 Ariz. 575, 577, 821 P.2d 236, 238 (App. 1991); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii). Accordingly, this court declines to address those additional issues.
¶5 For these reasons, this court grants review but denies relief.