Opinion
2 CA-CR 2022-0169-PR
12-16-2022
The State of Arizona, Respondent, v. Salvador Rodriguez Herrera, Petitioner.
Salvador Rodriguez Herrera, 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Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court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. CR2016134805001DT The Honorable Michael Mandell, Judge
Salvador Rodriguez Herrera, Kingman In Propria Persona
Vice Chief Judge Staring authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Eppich and Judge Brearcliffe concurred.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
STARING, VICE CHIEF JUDGE
¶1 Petitioner Salvador Herrera seeks review of the trial court's order dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Rule 33, Ariz. R. Crim. P. Because Herrera has not complied with Rule 33.16(c)(2)(B)-(D), we deny review.
¶2 Pursuant to a plea agreement, Herrera was convicted of sexual conduct with a minor and two counts of attempted child molestation. The trial court sentenced him to a prison term of twenty-three years on the sexual-conduct charge and suspended the imposition of sentence and placed him on lifetime terms of probation for the other counts. Herrera thereafter sought and, on May 20, 2020, was denied post-conviction relief.
¶3 In August 2021, Herrera initiated a successive and untimely proceeding for post-conviction relief, see Ariz. R. Crim. P. 33.4(3)(A)-(C), arguing in his petition that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel, that various constitutional rights had been violated, and that newly discovered evidence and a significant change in the law entitled him to relief. The trial court summarily denied relief.
¶4 On review, Herrera asks this court to "provide due diligence in reviewing the demonstration of the 'Boiler Plate Reply' and review the demonstration" of his entitlement to post-conviction relief. He does not cite the record or any relevant authority, nor does he explain beyond the above statement how the trial court erred in denying relief. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 33.16(c)(2)(B)-(D). His failure to comply with our rules or 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 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 We deny review.