Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2018-0156-PR
09-26-2018
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. JUAN GABRIEL RAMIREZ, Petitioner.
COUNSEL Kent P. Volkmer, Pinal County Attorney By Thomas C. McDermott, Appellate Bureau Chief, Florence Counsel for Respondent Juan G. Ramirez, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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)(1); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.19(e). Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Pinal County
No. S1100CR201501268
The Honorable Lawrence M. Wharton, Judge Pro Tempore
REVIEW DENIED
COUNSEL Kent P. Volkmer, Pinal County Attorney
By Thomas C. McDermott, Appellate Bureau Chief, Florence
Counsel for Respondent Juan G. Ramirez, Florence
In Propria Persona
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Brearcliffe authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Staring and Chief Judge Eckerstrom concurred. BREARCLIFFE, Judge:
¶1 Juan Ramirez seeks review of the trial court's ruling summarily denying his motion to reconsider its denial of his "Motion to Strike Anders Brief in Post-Conviction Relief Proceedings" and "Request for Discovery." We deny review.
¶2 After a jury trial, Ramirez was convicted of three counts of child molestation and five counts of sexual conduct with a minor. The trial court sentenced Ramirez to a combination of concurrent and consecutive, presumptive prison terms totaling fifty-seven years. Appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); we found no fundamental error and affirmed Ramirez's convictions and sentences on appeal. State v. Ramirez, No. 2 CA-CR 2016-0237 (Ariz. App. Feb. 13, 2017) (mem. decision).
¶3 Ramirez then sought post-conviction relief, and appointed counsel filed a notice stating she had reviewed the record and found no colorable claims to raise pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. In a January 30, 2018 order which was mailed to Ramirez, the trial court directed him to file a pro se Rule 32 petition on or before March 19, 2018. On April 16, 2018, well after the March deadline, the court noted Ramirez had not filed a petition and thus dismissed the Rule 32 proceeding. Nine days later, on April 25, 2018, Ramirez filed a "Motion to Strike Anders Brief in Post-Conviction Relief Proceedings" and a "Request for Discovery." The court denied Ramirez's motion and request, noting "that a Rule 32 Petition is no longer pending." Ramirez now petitions for review of the court's May 15, 2018 order denying his motion for reconsideration, in which he apparently asked the court to reconsider its denial of his motion to strike and his discovery request.
Ramirez had not asked the trial court to extend the deadline to file a petition, nor had he requested that he be provided with any missing portions of the record or transcripts.
The record before us does not appear to contain Ramirez's motion for reconsideration. --------
¶4 On review, Ramirez asks that we review the trial court's denial of his motion to reconsider its denial of his motion to strike and his discovery request, all of which were filed after the court had dismissed the Rule 32 proceeding on April 16, 2018. Generally asserting he has been requesting "court documents and transcripts of his case" since 2016, Ramirez maintains he cannot file a Rule 32 petition "[w]ithout any of his transcripts and court documents."
¶5 However, Ramirez makes no legal argument cognizable under Rule 32. Cf. State v. Carriger, 143 Ariz. 142, 146 (1984) ("It is the petitioner's burden to assert grounds that bring him within the provisions of [Rule 32] in order to obtain relief."). Because there was no petition for post-conviction relief pending before the trial court, Ramirez's petition for review does not comply with Rule 32.9, Ariz. R. Crim. P., in any meaningful way. Accordingly, our summary denial of review is justified. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(f) (appellate review under Rule 32.9 discretionary); 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).
¶6 We decline review of Ramirez's petition.