Opinion
2 CA-CR 2024-0055-PR
08-29-2024
The State of Arizona, Respondent, v. Abel Olvera Guzman, Petitioner.
Abel O. Guzman, 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Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court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. CR2019155362001DT The Honorable Ronee F. Korbin Steiner, Judge
REVIEW DENIED
Abel O. Guzman, Kingman In Propria Persona
Judge Eckerstrom authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Gard and Chief Judge Staring concurred.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
ECKERSTROM, Judge:
¶1 Abel Guzman seeks review of the superior court's ruling summarily dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 33, Ariz. R. Crim. P. We deny review.
¶2 Pursuant to a 2022 plea agreement, Guzman was convicted of attempted child molestation, sexual conduct with a minor, and attempted sexual conduct with a minor. The superior court sentenced him to seventeen years' imprisonment, followed by lifetime probation.
¶3 In January 2024, Guzman filed a notice of and petition for post-conviction relief. The following month, the superior court dismissed the Rule 33 proceeding. The court found the "proceeding [wa]s untimely by more than 16 months." It nevertheless went on to address the merits of Guzman's claims, finding none of them to be colorable. This petition for review followed.
¶4 On review, Guzman contends that he has recently obtained all the discovery related to his case and has identified "numerous errors and constitutional violations." In particular, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and the grand jury proceeding.
Guzman received a copy of the grand jury transcript after he filed his current Rule 33 notice and petition. We do not address claims raised for the first time in a petition for review. See State v. Ramirez, 126 Ariz. 464, 468 (App. 1980).
¶5 However, Guzman fails to explain how the superior court erred in summarily dismissing his Rule 33 petition. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 33.16(c)(2)(B), (D) (petition for review must contain "statement of issues the trial court decided that the defendant is presenting for appellate review" and "reasons why the appellate court should grant the petition"). He also fails to cite relevant legal authority and to include appropriate record references. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 33.16(c)(2)(C), (D). Guzman's failure to comply with our rules or to present meaningful argument justifies our summary denial of review. See State v. French, 198 Ariz. 119, ¶ 9 (App. 2000) (summarily rejecting claims not complying with rule 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).
¶6 Accordingly, we deny review.