Opinion
1 CA-CR 21-0194 PRPC
03-31-2022
STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. JOSE MANUEL ARIAS, Petitioner.
Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Amanda M. Parker Counsel for Respondent Jose Manuel Arias, Kingman Petitioner
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2018-113643-001 The Honorable Jennifer C. Ryan-Touhill, Judge
Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix
By Amanda M. Parker
Counsel for Respondent
Jose Manuel Arias, Kingman
Petitioner 1
Presiding Judge David D. Weinzweig, Judge Brian Y. Furuya and Judge Jennifer M. Perkins delivered the decision of the Court.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
PER CURIAM
¶1 Jose Manuel Arias seeks review of the superior court's order summarily dismissing his first request for post-conviction relief ("PCR") under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure ("Rule") 33. We will not disturb the superior court's ruling absent an abuse of discretion. State v. Roseberry, 237 Ariz. 507, 508, ¶ 7 (2015). Because Arias has not complied with Rule 33, we deny review.
¶2 In December 2019, Arias pled guilty to one count each of sexual assault, a class 2 felony, and attempted sexual assault, a class 3 felony. The next month, the superior court sentenced him in accordance with the stipulated terms of the plea agreement to eight years' imprisonment on the sexual-assault conviction to be followed by a lifetime-probation term for the attempted sexual assault conviction.
¶3 In May 2021, Arias filed a notice of petition for post-conviction relief on court-approved forms. He requested the appointment of counsel and checked various boxes indicating he was raising claims under Rule 33.1(a), (e), (f), and (g). The only explanation he offered to support his claims was that his "due process rights were directly and indirectly violated[.]" He did not attach any affidavits or other documents to his petition. His notice was untimely, but claimed it was not his fault because he had been "in closed custody" with "limited access to the court documents."
¶4 The superior court summarily dismissed the PCR proceeding, finding Arias had neither "state[d] a claim for which relief can be granted in an untimely Rule 33 proceeding" nor "adequately explained] the reasons for their untimely assertion." The court also denied his request to appoint counsel. This timely petition for review followed.
¶5 A petition for review in a PCR proceeding must contain (1) "a statement of issues the trial court decided that the defendant is presenting for appellate review"; (2) "a statement of material facts concerning the 2 issues presented for review, including specific references to the record for each material fact"; and (3) reasons why the petition should be granted. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 33.16(c)(2)(B)-(D); see also Ariz. R. Crim. P. 33.16(c)(4) ("A party's failure to raise any issue that could be raised in the petition for review or cross-petition for review constitutes a waiver of appellate review of that issue."). Strict compliance with Rule 33 is required. See State v. Carriger, 143 Ariz. 142, 146 (1984); see also State v. French, 198 Ariz. 119, 122, ¶ 9 (App. 2000) (rejecting PCR claims for failing to comply with the rules governing the form and content of petitions for review), disapproved of on other grounds by Stewart v. Smith, 202 Ariz. 446, 450, ¶ 10 (2002).
¶6 Arias's petition for review meets none of Rule 33.16's requirements. He made no effort to address the superior court's ruling, let alone explain why the court erred by summarily dismissing his proceeding. He neither identifies the issues the superior court decided nor summarizes the material facts for our review, and his petition lacks any citations to the record or relevant legal authority. See State v. Stefanovich, 232 Ariz. 154, 158, ¶ 16 (App. 2013). He does not refer to the superior court's ruling apart from stating the court "declined to accept this petition, or even provide the petitioner counsel to demonstrate probable cause" and suggesting the court improperly determined "no acts of harm occurred."
¶7 Arias's cursory assertions do not constitute a meaningful challenge to the superior court's ruling, and his failure to comply with Rule 33.16 justifies our refusal to grant review. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 33.16(k) (describing appellate review as discretionary); French, 198 Ariz. at 122, ¶ 9; Stefanovich, 232 Ariz. at 158, ¶ 16 (waiving a PCR claim on review when the petitioner failed to cite relevant authority or develop a meaningful supporting argument). Accordingly, we deny review of the dismissal order. 3