Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 16-0446 PRPC
09-21-2017
STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. BENNIE CARVAJAL, JR., Petitioner.
COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Jeffrey R. Duvendack Counsel for Respondent Bennie Carvajal, Jr., Kingman Petitioner
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2014-151459-001
The Honorable Margaret R. Mahoney, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL
Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix
By Jeffrey R. Duvendack
Counsel for Respondent
Bennie Carvajal, Jr., Kingman
Petitioner
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Kenton D. Jones delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Margaret H. Downie and Chief Judge Samuel A. Thumma joined.
JONES, Judge:
¶1 Bennie Carvajal, Jr. petitions this Court for review from the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief of-right, filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. We have considered the petition for review and, for the reasons stated, grant review and deny relief.
¶2 Carvajal pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated assault with one prior felony conviction and one count of misconduct involving weapons with one prior felony conviction, in connection with events occurring in October 2014. The trial court accepted the plea agreement and, according it its stipulations, sentenced Carvajal to concurrent terms of imprisonment of eight years for aggravated assault and four-and-a-half years for misconduct involving weapons.
¶3 Carvajal timely filed post-conviction relief proceedings, but his appointed counsel was unable to identify any colorable claims to present. Carvajal then filed a pro se petition alleging the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the indictment did not comply with Article 6, Section 25, of the Arizona Constitution, which provides that in criminal prosecutions, "[t]he style of process shall be 'The State of Arizona.'" Carvajal alleged jurisdiction was lacking because the indictment listed the plaintiff as "THE STATE OF ARIZONA." Finding no authority to support Carvajal's assertion that jurisdiction was defeated by identifying the plaintiff "in all capital letters, rather than upper and lower case letters," the superior court summarily dismissed Carvajal's petition. A timely petition for review followed.
¶4 We will not disturb a superior court's ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief absent an abuse of discretion. State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012) (citing State v. Bennett, 213 Ariz. 562, 566, ¶ 17 (2006)). On review, the petitioner bears the burden of establishing error. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 538, ¶ 1 (App. 2011). Carvajal has not sustained his burden here.
¶5 "'[S]ubject matter jurisdiction' refers to a court's statutory or constitutional power to hear and determine a particular type of case." State v. Maldonado, 223 Ariz. 309, 311, ¶ 14 (2010) (citations omitted); see also State v. Bryant, 219 Ariz. 514, 517, ¶ 14 (App. 2008) (defining subject matter jurisdiction as "the power of a court to hear and determine a controversy") (citing Marks v. LaBerge, 146 Ariz. 12, 15 (App. 1985)). The Arizona Constitution specifically grants the state's superior courts original subject matter jurisdiction over "[c]riminal cases amounting to felony." Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 14(4). The plain language of that constitutional provision does not limit the court's jurisdiction based upon the style of the caption in a criminal prosecution, and the use of all capital letters did not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction.
¶6 Accordingly, we grant review and deny relief.