Opinion
2 CA-CR 2022-0163-PR
12-21-2022
The State of Arizona, Respondent, v. Carlos Garcia Delgado, Petitioner.
Carlos Garcia Delgado, 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Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court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. CR2015130220001DT The Honorable John Hannah Jr., Judge
Carlos Garcia Delgado, Kingman In Propria Persona
Judge Brearcliffe authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Eppich and Vice Chief Judge Staring concurred.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
BREARCLIFFE, JUDGE
¶1 Carlos Delgado seeks review of the trial court's order summarily dismissing his successive petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Rule 33, Ariz. R. Crim. P. We will not disturb that ruling unless the court abused its discretion. See State v. Roseberry, 237 Ariz. 507, ¶ 7 (2015). Because Delgado fails to comply with Rule 33.16, we deny review.
¶2 Pursuant to a plea agreement, Delgado was convicted of one count of sexual conduct with a minor and two counts of attempted molestation of a child, all dangerous crimes against children. The trial court imposed a seventeen-year prison sentence for the sexual conduct conviction, to be followed by two terms of lifetime probation for the attempted child molestation convictions. In September 2019, Delgado filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which the court dismissed in February 2020. He did not seek review of that ruling.
¶3 In December 2021, Delgado again sought post-conviction relief, asserting he was raising claims under Rule 33.1(a), (e), (g), and (h). The trial court summarily dismissed Delgado's petition, noting he had not raised any non-precluded, colorable claims entitling him to relief. The court also denied his request for the appointment of counsel. This petition for review followed.
¶4 In his pro se "Motion for Review en Banc," which we treat as a petition for review, Delgado solely requests that we "acknowledge and accept this motion for review. As Superior Court has rendered their standard reply." However, as a pro se litigant, Delgado is held to the same standards as an attorney. See State v. Cornell, 179 Ariz. 314, 331 (1994); see Ariz. R. Crim. P. 33.16(c)(2) (petition for review must contain "reasons why the appellate court should grant the petition, including citations to supporting legal authority, if known" and "specific references to the record"). Delgado's failure to comply in any meaningful way with Rule 33.16 or to present any argument at all justifies our summary refusal to grant review. State v. French, 198 Ariz. 119, ¶ 9 (App. 2000) (summarily rejecting claims not complying with rules 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).
¶5 Accordingly, we deny review.