Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 13-0369 PRPC
12-04-2014
STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. BRIAN ODELL HOPSON, Petitioner.
COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Diane Meloche Counsel for Petitioner Brian Odell Hopson, Tucson Petitioner
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED.
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2009-120677-001
The Honorable Rosa Mroz, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL
Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix
By Diane Meloche
Counsel for Petitioner
Brian Odell Hopson, Tucson
Petitioner
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Jon W. Thompson, Judge Donn Kessler and Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the decision of the Court.
PER CURIAM:
¶1 Petitioner Brian Odell Hopson petitions this court for review of the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. We have considered the petition for review and, for the reasons stated, grant review and deny relief.
¶2 A jury convicted Hopson of four counts of aggravated assault and the trial court sentenced him to four concurrent terms of twenty years' imprisonment. Hopson voluntarily dismissed his direct appeal and now seeks review of the summary dismissal of his second petition for postconviction relief. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.9(c).
¶3 Hopson's petition for post-conviction relief asserted that the Arizona Department of Corrections interfered with his efforts to file a post-trial motion pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 24. The superior court properly denied relief because this is not a cognizable claim under Rule 32.1.
¶4 While Hopson's petition for review arguably presents additional issues, Hopson did not raise those issues in his petition for post-conviction relief. A petition for review may not present issues that were not first presented to the trial court. State v. Ramirez, 126 Ariz. 464, 467, 616 P.2d 924, 927 (App. 1980); State v. Wagstaff, 161 Ariz. 66, 71, 775 P.2d 1130, 1135 (App. 1988); State v. Bortz, 169 Ariz. 575, 577, 821 P.2d 236, 238 (App. 1991); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii).
¶5 We grant review and deny relief.