Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2014-0173-PR
11-12-2014
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. RAMON JUAN ESCARENO-MERAZ, Petitioner.
COUNSEL Barbara LaWall, Pima County Attorney By Jacob R. Lines, Deputy County Attorney, Tucson Counsel for Respondent Ramon Juan Escareno-Meraz, Tucson In Propria Persona
THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24.
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Pima County
No. CR061723
The Honorable Kathleen Quigley, Judge
REVIEW DENIED
COUNSEL
Barbara LaWall, Pima County Attorney
By Jacob R. Lines, Deputy County Attorney, Tucson
Counsel for Respondent
Ramon Juan Escareno-Meraz, Tucson
In Propria Persona
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Miller authored the decision of the Court, in which Chief Judge Eckerstrom and Judge Espinosa concurred.
MILLER, Presiding Judge:
¶1 Ramon Escareno-Meraz petitions this court for review of the trial court's order summarily dismissing his petition for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. For the reasons that follow, we deny review.
¶2 Escareno-Meraz was convicted after a jury trial of various offenses related to his participation in a drug trafficking operation and was sentenced to aggravated prison terms, including three consecutive 18.5-year terms. State v. Escareno-Meraz, 232 Ariz. 586, ¶ 2, 307 P.3d 1013, 1013-14 (App. 2013). We affirmed his convictions and sentences on appeal. State v. Escareno-Meraz, No. 2 CA-CR 99-0186 (memorandum decision filed Mar. 29, 2001). Before this proceeding, Escareno-Meraz sought post-conviction relief on at least two occasions; the trial court denied relief both times, and this court denied relief on review. Escareno-Meraz, 232 Ariz. 586, ¶ 2, 307 P.3d at 1014; State v. Escareno-Meraz, No. 2 CA-CR 2002-0450-PR (decision order filed Jul. 30, 2004).
¶3 In his most recent petition for post-conviction relief, Escareno-Meraz claimed that his counsel failed to inform him about a plea offer from the state and that his sentences violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment because his codefendants received substantially lesser sentences. The trial court summarily dismissed the petition, concluding his claims were precluded pursuant to Rule 32.2, Ariz. R. Crim. P.
¶4 On review, Escareno-Meraz briefly repeats his claims and asserts he is entitled to relief. However, he does not address in his petition the court's summary dismissal on the grounds of
preclusion or advance any basis for concluding that ruling was incorrect or an abuse of discretion. Moreover, his reliance in a supplemental citation to State v. Sheppard, 179 Ariz. 83, 876 P.2d 579 (1994), and State v. Thompson, 198 Ariz. 142, 7 P.3d 151 (App. 2000), vacated by 200 Ariz. 439, 27 P.3d 796 (2001), is unavailing because neither case concerns preclusion. Because Escareno-Meraz fails to provide any legal argument relevant to our consideration of the court's order, we deny review. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1) (petition for review must comply with rule governing form of appellate motions and contain "reasons why the petition should be granted" and either an appendix or "specific references to the record"); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(f) (appellate review under Rule 32.9 discretionary); see also State v. Bolton, 182 Ariz. 290, 298, 896 P.2d 830, 838 (1995) (insufficient argument waives claim on review); State v. French, 198 Ariz. 119, ¶ 9, 7 P.3d 128, 131 (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, 46 P.3d 1067, 1071 (2002).
¶5 Review is denied.