Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2017-0353-PR
06-26-2018
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. CHARLES STRANGE, Petitioner.
COUNSEL Kent P. Volkmer, Pinal County Attorney By Geraldine L. Roll, Deputy County Attorney, Florence Counsel for Respondent Charles Strange, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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. S1100CR14895
The Honorable Gary V. Scales, Judge Pro Tempore
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL
Kent P. Volkmer, Pinal County Attorney
By Geraldine L. Roll, Deputy County Attorney, Florence
Counsel for Respondent
Charles Strange, Florence
In Propria Persona
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Eppich authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Vásquez and Judge Espinosa concurred.
EPPICH, Judge:
¶1 Charles Strange seeks review of the trial court's order denying his petition for post-conviction relief based on the results of DNA testing performed pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4240. We will not disturb that ruling unless the court abused its discretion. See State v. Roseberry, 237 Ariz. 507, ¶ 7 (2015). Strange has not shown such abuse here.
¶2 Following a jury trial, Strange was convicted of two counts of sexual assault, two counts of second-degree burglary, and four counts of attempted sexual assault. He was sentenced to concurrent and consecutive prison terms totaling ninety-six years. We affirmed his convictions and sentences on appeal. State v. Strange, No. 2 CA-CR 90-0228 (Ariz. App. May 31, 1991) (mem. decision). He has sought and been denied post-conviction relief on numerous occasions.
¶3 In July 2014, Strange filed a petition pursuant to § 13-4240 seeking DNA testing of various evidence. The trial court initially rejected that request as untimely. On review, this court granted relief, noting that § 13-4240(A) allows a defendant to seek DNA testing "at any time." State v. Strange, No. 2 CA-CR 2014-0291-PR, ¶¶ 3-4 (Ariz. App. Nov. 28, 2014).
¶4 On remand, the trial court granted Strange's request for DNA testing, directing the testing of several items of clothing related to Strange's attack on one of his two victims. Strange's DNA was not found on any of the clothing other than a pair of boxer shorts, although the report also described him as "possibly the major contributor" to a DNA mixture found on a pair of jeans. Based on those results, Strange filed a petition for post-conviction relief raising claims of newly discovered evidence and actual innocence based on the test results. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.1(e), (h). After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied relief. It noted the absence of Strange's DNA on most of the clothing was consistent with the trial evidence, including that Strange had removed the victim's clothing before assaulting her and the parties' stipulation there was "no semen, blood, or
other bodily fluids of the Defendant or victims on the clothing and other evidence collected." This pro se petition for review followed.
¶5 On review, Strange asserts that "in a[] sexual assault criminal case a[] U.S. citizen can[]not be convicted at trial on the mere testimony of a[] victim." That position is flatly unsupported by the law. See State v. Verdugo, 109 Ariz. 391, 393 (1973) ("The law is well settled that a conviction of rape may be had on the Uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix."). Strange has identified no error by the trial court, which we conclude, based on our review of the record, correctly rejected his claims in its thorough and well-reasoned minute entry; accordingly, we adopt that ruling. See State v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 274 (App. 1993).
¶6 We grant review but deny relief.