From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Beltran

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE
Feb 24, 2015
No. 1 CA-CR 13-0325 PRPC (Ariz. Ct. App. Feb. 24, 2015)

Opinion

No. 1 CA-CR 13-0325 PRPC

02-24-2015

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. JUAN NUNEZ BELTRAN, Petitioner.

COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Lisa Marie Martin Counsel for Respondent Juan Nunez Beltran, San Luis Petitioner


NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED.

AMENDED PER ORDER FILED 2-24-15

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR 2008-006567-002
The Honorable Warren J. Granville, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix
By Lisa Marie Martin
Counsel for Respondent

Juan Nunez Beltran, San Luis
Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge John C. Gemmill delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Patricia K. Norris and Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop joined.

GEMMILL, Judge:

¶1 Petitioner Juan Nunez Beltran seeks review of the trial court's summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure 32. We grant review, but for the following reasons, we deny relief.

¶2 Beltran pled guilty without a plea agreement to two counts of aggravated assault, each a class 2 felony; two counts of misconduct involving weapons, each a class 4 felony; one count of possession of dangerous drugs (methamphetamine), a class 4 felony; and one count of unlawful flight from a law enforcement vehicle, a class 5 felony. As part of the change of plea, Beltran admitted to having one historical prior felony conviction and acknowledged that the prior conviction would be used to enhance the sentences imposed on the convictions for misconduct involving weapons, possession of dangerous drugs, and unlawful flight. The trial court sentenced Beltran to consecutive aggravated twenty-one-year prison terms on the two aggravated assault convictions, with concurrent presumptive prison terms on the other four convictions.

¶3 Beltran filed a timely notice of post-conviction relief, and his appointed counsel gave notice that she had reviewed the record but had found no claims to raise in a post-conviction relief proceeding. Beltran then filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief raising claims of unlawful stop, illegal sentences, failure to offer plea agreement, and ineffective assistance of counsel. Finding that Beltran failed to state a colorable claim for relief, the trial court summarily dismissed the petition for post-conviction relief.

¶4 We review a summary dismissal of a petition for post-conviction relief for abuse of discretion. State v. Bennett, 213 Ariz. 562, 566, ¶ 17, 146 P.3d 63, 67 (2006). In summarily dismissing Beltran's petition, the trial court clearly identified the claims raised and resolved them correctly based on well-reasoned analysis. Because no purpose would be served by reiterating the trial court's ruling in its entirety, we adopt it. See State v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 274, 866 P.2d 1358, 1360 (App. 1993) (holding in a post-conviction relief decision that "[n]o useful purpose would be served by this court rehashing the trial court's correct ruling in a written decision" when the trial court has "correctly ruled upon in a fashion that will allow any court in the future to understand the resolution."

¶5 Beltran attempts to argue on review that the trial court erred in not granting relief based in the State's failure to file a timely response to

his petition for post-conviction relief. This argument is without merit. A trial court has discretion to extend a filing deadline and, implicitly, to consider late filings. State v. Vincent, 147 Ariz. 6, 8, 708 P.2d 97, 99 (App. 1985). Furthermore, a trial court is not required to grant relief even if no response is filed. State v. Cawley, 133 Ariz. 27, 29, 648 P.2d 142, 144 (App. 1982. Because Beltran failed to present a claim upon which relief can be granted, there was no abuse of discretion by the trial court in summarily dismissing the petition for post-conviction relief.

¶6 Accordingly, we grant review but deny relief.


Summaries of

State v. Beltran

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE
Feb 24, 2015
No. 1 CA-CR 13-0325 PRPC (Ariz. Ct. App. Feb. 24, 2015)
Case details for

State v. Beltran

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. JUAN NUNEZ BELTRAN, Petitioner.

Court:ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE

Date published: Feb 24, 2015

Citations

No. 1 CA-CR 13-0325 PRPC (Ariz. Ct. App. Feb. 24, 2015)