Opinion
1 CA-CR 23-0319 PRPC
03-19-2024
STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. RYAN EUGENE BAZZILL, Petitioner.
Ryan Eugene Bazzill, Kingman Petitioner Yavapai County Attorney's Office, Prescott By Glen M. Asay Counsel for Respondent
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County No. P1300CR202000719 The Honorable Krista M. Carman, Judge.
Ryan Eugene Bazzill, Kingman
Petitioner
Yavapai County Attorney's Office, Prescott
By Glen M. Asay
Counsel for Respondent
Vice Chief Judge Randall M. Howe delivered the decision of the court, in which Presiding Judge Anni Hill Foster and Judge Brian Y. Furuya joined.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
HOWE, JUDGE.
¶1 Ryan Eugene Bazzill requests review of and relief from the trial court's order denying him post-conviction relief ("PCR"). For the following reasons, we grant review but deny relief.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
¶2 In July 2021, Bazzill was convicted of one count of possession of dangerous drugs for sale (methamphetamine), a class 2 felony, and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia, a class 6 felony. Before trial, Bazzill and the State stipulated that the State would not use evidence of a prior felony during trial. Bazzill was sentenced to mitigated prison terms of 5 and .33 years, respectively. This court affirmed his convictions and sentences. State v. Bazzill, 1 CA-CR 21-0286, 2022 WL 2165374 at *3 ¶ 13 (Ariz. App. June 16, 2022) (mem. decision).
¶3 In October 2022, Bazzill filed a PCR notice and was appointed counsel. Counsel notified the court that he could not find any colorable claims to raise and moved to withdraw as counsel and extend the deadline for Bazzill to file his own pro per petition. The court granted the motion, and Bazzill timely filed his PCR petition. In his petition, he alleged that his counsel was ineffective, that officers lied about his conduct during the arrest, and that the State both mishandled evidence and fabricated his prior conviction. In the latter claim, Bazzill more specifically alleged that the State invented a 2006 felony conviction of sexual conduct with a minor and included it on its summary of his felony convictions and proposed plea agreement.
¶4 The trial court denied his PCR petition. It found that Bazzill's counsel's representation did not fall below the standard of reasonableness and that he was not ineffective. It also found that Bazzill was precluded from seeking post-conviction relief on the other grounds because he failed to raise them in a prior appeal. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a)(3) (precluding relief where a claim was waived on appeal, except when a claim raises a violation of certain constitutional rights). Bazzill now petitions for review of the order denying PCR. This court has jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 13-4239(C) and Ariz. R. Crim. P. 33.16(a)(1).
DISCUSSION
¶5 Bazzill's sole contention in his petition is that the State fabricated the prior conviction in his public safety assessment report, summary of prior convictions, and proposed plea agreement. His allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel and other claims are therefore waived. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.16(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.").
¶6 This court need not consider whether the prior conviction was fictitious, however, because it was not used in either Bazzill's trial or sentencing. Bazzill received the minimum sentence for possessing methamphetamine for sale, see A.R.S. § 13-3407(E), and was sentenced as a first-time offender for the paraphernalia charge. Compare A.R.S. § 13-702(D) (setting a mitigated term of .33 years for first-time offenders) with A.R.S. § 13-703(H)-(J) (setting different permissible ranges for repetitive offenders). Because Bazzill's contention has no bearing on his convictions or sentences, this court declines to disturb the trial court's order denying relief.
CONCLUSION
¶7 We grant review and deny relief.