Opinion
2 CA-CR 2023-0180-PR
09-15-2023
The State of Arizona, Respondent, v. Juan Castillo-Mejia, Petitioner.
Juan Castillo-Mejia, Kingman In Propria Persona
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2019141114001DT The Honorable Glenn A. Allen, Judge
Juan Castillo-Mejia, Kingman In Propria Persona
Judge O'Neil authored the decision of the Court, in which Vice Chief Judge Staring and Judge Sklar concurred.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
O'NEIL, JUDGE
¶1 Petitioner Juan Castillo-Mejia seeks review of the superior court's order dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Rule 33, Ariz. R. Crim. P. "We will not disturb a trial court's ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief absent a clear abuse of discretion." State v. Ainsworth, 250 Ariz. 457, ¶ 1 (App. 2021) (quoting State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390, ¶ 4 (App. 2007)). Because Castillo-Mejia challenges the court's decision in a previous, final proceeding, we deny review.
¶2 Pursuant to a plea agreement, Castillo-Mejia was convicted of sexual conduct with a minor, attempted sexual conduct with a minor, and attempted molestation of a child. The superior court imposed a twenty-year sentence on the sexual conduct charge and suspended the imposition of sentence on the two attempt charges, placing Castillo-Mejia on lifetime terms of probation.
¶3 Castillo-Mejia initiated a proceeding for post-conviction relief, and appointed counsel filed a notice stating she had reviewed the record and was "unable to find any colorable claims for relief" to raise in the proceeding. In a pro se supplemental petition, Castillo-Mejia raised various claims, including that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel, that the court lacked jurisdiction, and that his sentence was unlawful. The superior court summarily denied relief in August 2022, and later denied Castillo-Mejia's request for an extension of time in which to file a motion for rehearing. This court dismissed his petition for review as untimely.
¶4 In November 2022, Castillo-Mejia filed another petition for post-conviction relief, again asserting claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and lack of jurisdiction, but also indicating newly discovered material facts entitled him to relief. The superior court summarily dismissed the petition in December. Castillo-Mejia filed another notice requesting post-conviction relief in January 2023, which the court dismissed due to his failure to "assert substantive claims and adequately explain why the claims are untimely" raised. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 33.2(a), (b)(1).
¶5 Castillo-Mejia filed his most recent petition for review in March 2023, shortly after the superior court's most recent dismissal. But the petition specifically challenges the trial court's August 2022 ruling, which is long final. Because Castillo-Mejia's petitions for review from that ruling have previously been dismissed, and the time to petition for review is past, see Ariz. R. Crim. P. 33.16(a)(1), we deny review.