Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2018-0026-PR
06-28-2018
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. DARRELL TEER JR., Petitioner.
COUNSEL Kent P. Volkmer, Pinal County Attorney By Thomas C. McDermott, Appellate Bureau Chief, Florence Counsel for Respondent Darrell Teer, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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. S1100CR201501725
The Honorable Joseph R. Georgini, Judge
REVIEW DENIED
COUNSEL
Kent P. Volkmer, Pinal County Attorney
By Thomas C. McDermott, Appellate Bureau Chief, Florence
Counsel for Respondent
Darrell Teer, 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 Derrell Teer Jr. seeks review of the trial court's ruling summarily denying his petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. We deny review.
¶2 After a jury trial, Teer was convicted of child molestation and sentenced to a ten-year prison term. On appeal, counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530 (App. 1999), asserting she had reviewed the record and found no arguable issues to raise on appeal. Teer filed a supplemental brief raising several claims. On appeal, we found no fundamental error and rejected Teer's arguments. We therefore affirmed his conviction and sentence. State v. Teer, No. 2 CA-CR 2016-0193 (Ariz. App. Feb. 13, 2017) (mem. decision).
¶3 Teer 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. Teer filed a pro se petition raising the same arguments he had raised on appeal: (1) his indictment was duplicitous; (2) the trial court erred by excluding evidence of his sexual relationship with the victim's mother; and, (3) his conviction was improper because there was no evidence, except his confession, that he had touched the victim's breast. He also generally asserted his trial counsel had been ineffective, the state had committed misconduct, and he is "Actually Innocent." The trial court summarily denied relief, and this petition for review followed.
¶4 On review, Teer does nothing more than list the claims raised below. He makes no cognizable legal argument, does not cite to the record, and identifies no error by the trial court. His failure to comply with Rule 32.9 and to present any argument supporting his claims justifies our summary refusal to grant review. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(4)(B)(iii) (petition for review must include "specific references to the record for each material fact"), (iv) (petition for review must contain "reasons why the
appellate court should grant the petition, including citations to supporting legal authority"), (f) (appellate review under Rule 32.9 discretionary); see also State v. Stefanovich, 232 Ariz. 154, ¶ 16 (App. 2013) (insufficient argument waives claim on review); 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).
¶5 We decline review of Teer's petition.