Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2017-0294-PR
04-03-2018
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. LORENZO REYES FELIX, Petitioner.
Lorenzo Reyes Felix, Florence 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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)(1); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.19(e). Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Pima County
No. CR20084461
The Honorable Howard Fell, Judge Pro Tempore
REVIEW DENIED
Lorenzo Reyes Felix, Florence
In Propria Persona
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Brearcliffe authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Staring and Chief Judge Eckerstrom concurred. BREARCLIFFE, Judge:
¶1 Lorenzo Felix seeks review of the trial court's order denying his petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. For the reasons that follow, we deny review.
¶2 After a jury trial, Felix was convicted of first-degree burglary, kidnapping, aggravated assault, armed robbery, two counts of sexual abuse, five counts of sexual assault, theft of a means of transportation, first-degree trafficking in stolen property, and theft of a credit card. He was sentenced to a combination of consecutive and concurrent prison terms totaling ninety years. We affirmed his convictions and sentences on appeal. State v. Felix, No. 2 CA-CR 2010-0320 (Ariz. App. Jul 29, 2011) (mem. decision).
¶3 Felix sought post-conviction relief, filing a pro se petition in which he identified thirteen claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and seven claims he described as based on newly discovered evidence. The trial court determined Felix was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on eight of his claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. After that hearing, the court denied relief. This petition for review followed.
¶4 In his petition for review, Felix asks that we "[r]eview all (20) Arguments" raised in his petition below, and summarizes twenty-six separate issues. His petition, however, is devoid of citation to the record or meaningful legal argument. His failure to comply with Rule 32.9 and to present any legal argument supporting his claims justifies our summary refusal to grant review. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(4)(B)(iii) (petition for review must include "specific references to the record for each material fact"), (iv) (petition for review must contain "reasons why the appellate court should grant the petition, including citations to supporting legal authority"), (f) (appellate review under Rule 32.9 discretionary); see also State v. Stefanovich, 232 Ariz. 154, ¶ 16 (App. 2013) (insufficient argument waives claim on 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). Thus, in our discretion, we decline review of Felix's petition.
¶5 Felix also requests that we review his "Petition for Special Action" filed in this court in December 2012. He apparently refers to a "Petition For Review of Petition For Special Action" he filed in our case number No. 2 CA-CR 2012-0473-PR, in which he complained about the trial court's denial of various motions related to his belief that exculpatory evidence had been removed from the trial transcripts. We denied review in that proceeding. State v. Felix, No. 2 CA-CR 2012-0473-PR (Ariz. App. Mar. 29, 2013) (mem. decision). We decline Felix's invitation to revisit that decision.
Felix also sought special action relief in early 2013 concerning the same issue. We declined to exercise jurisdiction. Felix v. State, No. 2 CA-SA 2013-0014 (Ariz. App. Mar. 6, 2013) (order). --------
¶6 We deny review.