Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 16-0500 PRPC
10-10-2017
STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. RICKY LEON JARRETT, Petitioner.
COUNSEL La Paz County Attorney's Office, Parker By Elizabeth Burton Ortiz Counsel for Respondent Ricky Leon Jarrett, Florence 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in La Paz County
No. S1500CR201400063
The Honorable Robert Carter Olson, Judge, Retired
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL
La Paz County Attorney's Office, Parker
By Elizabeth Burton Ortiz
Counsel for Respondent
Ricky Leon Jarrett, Florence
Petitioner
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Jon W. Thompson delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Kenton D. Jones and Chief Judge Samuel A. Thumma joined.
THOMPSON, Judge :
¶1 Ricky Leon Jarrett petitions this court for review from the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure (Rule) 32. We have considered the petition for review and, for the reasons stated, grant review and deny relief.
¶2 Jarrett pled guilty to attempted sexual conduct with a minor and molestation of a child, dangerous crimes against children. Abiding by Jarrett's agreement with the state, the court imposed a 12.5-year prison term to be followed by lifetime probation.
¶3 Jarrett thereafter sought post-conviction relief, arguing the court abused its discretion by not granting Jarrett's pro per request to withdraw from the plea agreement after the change of plea hearing. Jarrett also argued his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance for failing to file a motion to withdraw representation and for filing a "constitutionally inadequate . . . Motion For Order On Collection and Determination of DNA evidence[.]" The court determined that the issue regarding Jarrett's request to withdraw from the plea agreement was not a colorable claim. However, the court found the ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) claim was colorable. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the court denied relief. Jarrett timely filed a petition for review. We review for an abuse of discretion. State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19, 278 P.3d 1276, 1280 (2012).
¶4 Jarret argues the superior court erred in refusing to allow him to withdraw from the plea agreement. The record reflects Jarrett withdrew this claim prior to the evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, this claim is not properly before us, and we do not address it.
¶5 Regarding his IAC claim, Jarrett's petition for review does not comply with Rule 32 because it fails to identify any factual or legal error in the superior court's ruling. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii) (petition must state "the issues which were decided by the trial court and which the
defendant wishes to present to the appellate court for review"); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1)(iv) (petition must contain "[t]he reasons why the petition should be granted"). Indeed, the petition for review merely repeats verbatim the arguments Jarrett made in his amended petition for post-conviction relief. And we decline Jarrett's apparent invitation to review for fundamental error. There is no fundamental error review in a Rule 32 proceeding. State v. Smith, 184 Ariz. 456, 460, 910 P.2d 1, 5 (1996).
¶6 Finally, Jarrett lists numerous issues that he did not raise in the superior court. They are:
(1) false police report; (2) DNA no match; (3) alleged victim caught lyeing (sic); (4) civil rights violations; (5) vindictive prosecution; (6) illegal sentence double jeopardy excessive sentence; (7) did not follow proper procedures and protocols; (8) no grand jury indictment on the 4 charges; (9) victim coerced into making false statements against me. fabricated testimony = false imprisonment; (10) prosecutor compelled me to testify against myself violating my 5th amendment right against self incrimination (sic). Vindictive prosecution and abuse of judges (sic) discretion in an evidentiary hearing; . . . ; (13) prosecutor threatened me an (sic) intimidated me into signing a plea bargain by telling me that I will get 100 years in prison if I don't sign the plea bargain; (14) excessive force by arresting officers they put the handcuffs on me extra tight; (15) prosecutor withheld favorable evidence from the court; (16) outrageous conduct by the prosecutor in an evidentiary hearing; (17) prosecutor bought [trial defense counsel]; (18) conspiracy to put me away to protect the real criminal; (19) cruel and unusual punishment due to maltreatment in county jail.
Because Jarrett failed to raise these issues in superior court, we do not address them. See State v. Wagstaff, 161 Ariz. 66, 71, 775 P.2d 1130, 1135 (App. 1988) (reviewing court will not consider meritorious issue not first presented to the trial court).
¶7 We grant review and deny relief.