Opinion
2 CA-CR 2022-0129-PR
02-24-2023
The State of Arizona, Respondent, v. Ricardo Daniel Bracamonte, Petitioner.
Ricardo D. Bracamonte, Florence In Propria Persona
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Pima County No. CR20180525001 The Honorable Catherine M. Woods, Judge
Ricardo D. Bracamonte, Florence In Propria Persona
Vice Chief Judge Staring authored the decision of the Court, in which Judge Sklar and Judge O'Neil concurred.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
STARING, Vice Chief Judge:
¶1Ricardo Bracamonte seeks review of the trial court's ruling summarily dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. We deny review.
¶2After a jury trial, Bracamonte was convicted of two counts of sexual conduct with a minor, two counts of molestation of a child, two counts of sexual abuse of a minor, one count of continuous sexual abuse of a child, one count of kidnapping, and one count of attempted sexual assault of a minor. The trial court sentenced him to multiple prison terms, including two consecutive life sentences, each without the possibility of release for thirty-five years. This court affirmed his convictions and sentences on appeal. State v. Bracamonte, No. 2 CA-CR 2020-0018 (Ariz. App. May 12, 2021) (mem. decision).
¶3Bracamonte initiated a proceeding for post-conviction relief. Appointed counsel filed a notice that she had reviewed the record but found "no colorable claims for post-conviction relief." The trial court granted Bracamonte leave to file a pro se petition, which he did in March 2022. Bracamonte raised a claim of ineffective assistance, suggesting that trial counsel had not been properly prepared for trial.
Although Bracamonte checked boxes on a standardized form indicating that he was raising several other claims, his handwritten petition only developed an argument as to ineffective assistance. The trial court determined that Bracamonte had "failed to develop any claims other than ineffective assistance of counsel" and therefore "summarily dismissed without an evidentiary hearing" his "unsubstantiated" claims. Bracamonte does not challenge that determination on review. We therefore limit our discussion to ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
¶4In an August 2022 ruling, the trial court summarily dismissed Bracamonte's petition. The court explained that in support of his claim, Bracamonte had relied solely on statements made by trial counsel at two pre-trial hearings about counsel's trial preparations. The court determined that Bracamonte had offered "no issue, fact, or argument that his counsel should have, but did not, develop or pursue." The court thus concluded that he had failed to establish that counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. In addition, the court observed that Bracamonte had failed to "put forth any example of how his lawyer's actions or inactions prejudiced him." This petition for review followed.
With his petition for post-conviction relief, Bracamonte also filed a motion for DNA testing. The trial court denied his motion in September 2022.
¶5The majority of Bracamonte's petition for review recites verbatim the trial court's ruling. After this recitation, Bracamonte suggests the court erred in rejecting his claim of ineffective assistance, but he fails to develop any cognizable legal argument beyond this general claim of error. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 33.16(c)(2)(B), (D) (petition for review must contain "statement of issues the trial court decided that the defendant is presenting for appellate review" and "reasons why the appellate court should grant the petition, including citations to supporting legal authority"). He also fails to cite any legal authority or record references supporting his position. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 33.16(c)(2)(C), (D). His failure to comply with our rules or present meaningful argument justifies our summary denial of review. See State v. French, 198 Ariz. 119, ¶ 9 (App. 2000) (summarily rejecting claims not complying with rule governing form and content of petitions for review), disapproved on other grounds by Stewart v. Smith, 202 Ariz. 446, ¶ 10 (2002); see also State v. Stefanovich, 232 Ariz. 154, ¶ 16 (App. 2013) (insufficient argument waives claim).
¶6Accordingly, we deny review.