Opinion
2 CA-CR 2012-0432-PR
01-31-2013
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. STANFORD LAMAR FERRELL, Petitioner.
Stanford L. Ferrell Florence In Propria Persona
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Not for Publication
Rule 111, Rules of
the Supreme Court
PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF COCHISE COUNTY
Cause No. CR200700791
Honorable Wallace R. Hoggatt, Judge
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED
Stanford L. Ferrell Florence
In Propria Persona
HOWARD, Chief Judge. ¶1 In this petition for review, petitioner Stanford Ferrell challenges the trial court's orders dismissing his successive petition for post-conviction relief and denying his motion for rehearing. Because Ferrell has failed to comply with Rule 32.9, Ariz. R. Crim. P., we deny his petition for review. ¶2 As we noted in our recent memorandum decision addressing Ferrell's petition for review of the denial of his initial petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P., Ferrell was convicted of two counts of child molestation, which he challenged in two appeals, one relating to and directly following the convictions and the trial court's imposition of consecutive, mitigated prison terms of fifteen years on each count, and the other challenging the court's denial of his motion for new trial. See State v. Ferrell, No. 2 CA-CR 2012-0090-PR, 1 (memorandum decision filed June 29, 2012). Ferrell commenced yet another post-conviction proceeding in August 2012. As it had in Ferrell's initial post-conviction proceeding, the trial court thoroughly addressed the claims Ferrell had raised in his petition, finding them precluded because Ferrell either had raised them or could have raised them previously, or rejecting them as wholly lacking merit. Ferrell filed a motion for rehearing, which the court denied on October 2, 2012. ¶3 Ferrell has filed a petition for review in which he asks us to "seriously consider" the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, unconstitutional use by the state of perjured testimony, and newly discovered evidence, which he had raised in his August 2012 petition for post-conviction relief. He asserts the reasons we should grant relief are set forth in his motion for rehearing and the petition, together with the attachments to the petition. He has also filed an addendum to the petition for review, which does not cure the defects discussed below. ¶4 Although Ferrell identifies the claims he wishes us to address in this summary fashion, he has failed to identify with sufficient specificity the issues the trial court addressed and has neither summarized the facts material to the consideration of those issues, nor specified the reasons we should grant his petition for review and grant him relief, as required by Rule 32.9(c)(1)(ii)-(iv), Ariz. R. Crim. P. Instead, Ferrell has attempted to incorporate by reference his petition for post-conviction relief and motion for rehearing, a procedure not permitted by the rule. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1) (petition for review must contain "reasons why the petition should be granted" and either appendix or "specific references to the record"); State v. French, 198 Ariz. 119, ¶ 9, 7 P.3d 128, 131 (App. 2000) (finding petition for review incorporating trial court filings "utterly fails to comply with Rule 32.9" and therefore rejecting summarily claims raised), disapproved on other grounds by Stewart v. Smith, 202 Ariz. 446, ¶ 10, 46 P.3d 1067, 1071 (2002); see also State v. Carriger, 143 Ariz. 142, 146, 692 P.2d 991, 995 (1984) ("Petitioners must strictly comply with Rule 32 or be denied relief."); cf. State v. Bolton, 182 Ariz. 290, 298, 896 P.2d 830, 838 (1995) (insufficient argument waives claim on review). ¶5 Because Ferrell has failed to comply with Rule 32.9(c), particularly subsections (c)(1)(iii) and (iv), we deny the petition. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(f) (review by appellate court discretionary).
_____________________________
JOSEPH W. HOWARD, Chief Judge
CONCURRING: _______________________________
PETER J. ECKERSTROM, Presiding Judge
__________________________
J. WILLIAM BRAMMER, JR., Judge
A retired judge of the Arizona Court of Appeals authorized and assigned to sit as a judge on the Court of Appeals, Division Two, pursuant to Arizona Supreme Court Order filed December 12, 2012.