Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2018-0287-PR
01-03-2019
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. DAVID JAMES BEAGLE, Petitioner.
David James Beagle, San Luis 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 Pima County
No. CR20160670001
The Honorable John Hinderaker, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
David James Beagle, San Luis
In Propria Persona
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Espinosa authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Eppich and Judge Vásquez concurred. ESPINOSA, Judge:
¶1 David Beagle seeks review of the trial court's order summarily denying his petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. We will not disturb that order unless the court abused its discretion. See State v. Roseberry, 237 Ariz. 507, ¶ 7 (2015). Beagle has not shown such abuse here.
¶2 After a bench trial, Beagle was convicted of possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited possessor and sentenced to a five-year prison term. We affirmed his conviction and sentence on appeal. State v. Beagle, No. 2 CA-CR 2017-0254 (Ariz. App. Sept. 10, 2018) (mem. decision). Beagle sought post-conviction relief, arguing in his pro se petition that his trial counsel had been ineffective in failing to discover "potential" violations of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and to adequately investigate his case, and that the trial court had erred by refusing to give a requested jury instruction, by enhancing his sentence based on an historical prior felony conviction the state had not alleged before trial, and by failing to provide a mitigation specialist or order a mental health examination. The court summarily denied relief. This petition for review followed.
Although Beagle was initially appointed post-conviction counsel, he later chose to proceed pro se. --------
¶3 In his petition, Beagle identifies no error in the trial court's ruling and does little more than summarize his claims. We have reviewed the record and conclude the court correctly rejected those claims in its thorough and well-reasoned ruling; accordingly, we adopt that ruling. See State v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 274 (App. 1993).
¶4 Although we grant review, relief is denied.