Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 19-0413 PRPC
02-27-2020
STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. MATTHEW JENNINGS JAGER, Petitioner.
COUNSEL Yavapai County Attorney's Office, Camp Verde By Ethan A. Wolfinger Counsel for Respondent Matthew Jennings Jager, Kingman Petitioner
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.
Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County
No. V1300CR201680009
The Honorable Michael R. Bluff, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED AND RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL
Yavapai County Attorney's Office, Camp Verde
By Ethan A. Wolfinger
Counsel for Respondent
Matthew Jennings Jager, Kingman
Petitioner
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Randall M. Howe delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Diane M. Johnsen joined.
HOWE, Judge:
¶1 Matthew Jennings Jager seeks review of the trial court's order denying his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure ("Rule") 33.1. This is Jager's second, successive petition.
¶2 In May 2016, Jager pleaded guilty to possession or use of a dangerous drug and admitted that his conviction constituted a violation of his probation. At the time, Jager was on probation after having been convicted of sexual conduct with a minor. Jager was sentenced to 5 years' imprisonment for violating his probation and 2.5 years' imprisonment for possession or use of a dangerous drug, with 184 days' presentence incarceration credit.
¶3 In June 2019, Jager untimely petitioned for post-conviction relief arguing that he had newly discovered evidence and that his felony drug charge should have been deemed a class 1 misdemeanor. The trial court summarily denied his petition for failing to comply with Rule 33.2.
¶4 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will not disturb a trial court's ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief. State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577 ¶ 19 (2012). Jager bears the burden to show that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the petition for post-conviction relief. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 538 ¶ 1 (App. 2011) (petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of discretion on review).
¶5 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the trial court's order denying the petition for post-conviction relief, and the petition for review. We find that Jager has not established an abuse of discretion. The trial court properly dismissed Jager's petition because he did not state why the claim in his petition was raised in an untimely manner. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 33.2(b)(1).
¶6 For the foregoing reasons, we grant review and deny relief.