From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Chantilou

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE
Jun 10, 2014
No. 1 CA-CR 13-0092 PRPC (Ariz. Ct. App. Jun. 10, 2014)

Opinion

No. 1 CA-CR 13-0092 PRPC

06-10-2014

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. EVERTON CHANTILOU, Petitioner.

Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Lisa Marie Martin Counsel for Respondent Everton Chantilou, Kingman Petitioner Pro Se


NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.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.


Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2009-006463-060

The Honorable Randall H. Warner, Judge


REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED


COUNSEL

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

Everton Chantilou, Kingman
Petitioner Pro Se

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Donn Kessler delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Kenton D. Jones and Judge Margaret H. Downie joined.

KESSLER, Judge:

¶1 Petitioner Everton Chantilou petitions this Court for review of the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. For the reasons stated, we grant review but deny relief.

¶2 A jury convicted Chantilou of illegally conducting an enterprise, conspiracy to commit sale or transportation of marijuana, use of wire communication in a drug transaction, and sale or transportation of marijuana. The trial court sentenced him to an aggregate term of six years' imprisonment to be followed by three years' probation, and we affirmed his convictions and sentences on direct appeal. State v. Chantilou, 1 CA-CR 10-0925 (Ariz. App. Jan. 31, 2012) (mem. decision). Chantilou filed a pro per petition for post-conviction relief after his counsel found no colorable claims for relief. The trial court summarily dismissed the petition and Chantilou now seeks review. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.9(c).

¶3 Chantilou did not raise the issues presented for review in the petition he filed below. A petition for review may not present issues not first presented to the trial court. State v. Bortz, 169 Ariz. 575, 577, 821 P.2d 236, 238 (App. 1991); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii). Accordingly, we grant review and deny relief.


Summaries of

State v. Chantilou

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE
Jun 10, 2014
No. 1 CA-CR 13-0092 PRPC (Ariz. Ct. App. Jun. 10, 2014)
Case details for

State v. Chantilou

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. EVERTON CHANTILOU, Petitioner.

Court:ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE

Date published: Jun 10, 2014

Citations

No. 1 CA-CR 13-0092 PRPC (Ariz. Ct. App. Jun. 10, 2014)