Opinion
2 CA-CR 2013-0031-PR
05-30-2013
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. RICHARD MICHAEL LONA, Petitioner.
M. Lando Voyles, Pinal County Attorney By Ronald S. Harris Florence Attorneys for Respondent Richard M. Lona Phoenix In Propria Persona
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Not for Publication
Rule 111, Rules of
the Supreme Court
PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PINAL COUNTY
Cause No. S1100CR200801581
Honorable Robert C. Brown, Judge Pro Tempore
REVIEW DENIED
M. Lando Voyles, Pinal County Attorney
By Ronald S. Harris
Florence
Attorneys for Respondent
Richard M. Lona Phoenix
In Propria Persona
ESPINOSA, Judge. ¶1 Petitioner Richard Lona seeks review of the trial court's order denying his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P., in which he alleged he had received ineffective assistance of counsel. For the reasons that follow, we deny review. ¶2 After a jury trial, Lona was convicted of leaving the scene of an accident, felony flight, and three counts of aggravated assault. The trial court imposed concurrent and consecutive, presumptive prison terms, three of which were enhanced, totaling 9.75 years' imprisonment. This court affirmed his convictions and sentences on appeal. State v. Lona, No. 2 CA-CR 2011-0154 (memorandum decision filed Feb. 17, 2012). ¶3 Lona then initiated a proceeding for post-conviction relief, arguing in his petition that he had received ineffective assistance of trial counsel based on counsel's having failed to "file any pretrial motions" or to "avail himself of the opportunity to secure an expert witness" to "rebut[] the state's claim that [he] had methamphetamine in his system at the time of the accident." He also claimed counsel had been ineffective in failing to object to or move to preclude testimony about the presence of methamphetamine in Lona's urine. The trial court summarily denied relief. ¶4 On review, Lona raises several entirely new claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and apparently now claims he is entitled to relief due to a significant change in the law based on the United States Supreme Court's rulings in Missouri v. Frye, __ U.S. __, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (2012), and Lafler v. Cooper, __ U.S. __, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (2012). This court will not consider for the first time on review issues that have neither been presented to, nor ruled on by, the trial court. State v. Ramirez, 126 Ariz. 464, 468, 616 P.2d 924, 928 (App. 1980); see also Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii) (petition for review shall contain "[t]he issues which were decided by the trial court and which the defendant wishes to present" for review). We therefore do not address the claims made in Lona's petition for review, none of which was raised below. ¶5 Likewise, because Lona has abandoned on review his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim raised below and has not advanced reasons he believes the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing it, any such argument is waived, and we do not address it. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1) (petition for review shall contain "the reasons why the petition should be granted" and "specific references to the record"); State v. Rodriguez, 227 Ariz. 58, n.4, 251 P.3d 1045, 1048 n.4 (App. 2010) (declining to address argument not raised in petition for review); see also State v. Bolton, 182 Ariz. 290, 298, 896 P.2d 830, 838 (1995) ("Failure to argue a claim on appeal constitutes waiver of that claim."). ¶6 Review is denied.
_________________
PHILIP G. ESPINOSA, Judge
CONCURRING: _________________
GARYE L. VÁSQUEZ, Presiding Judge
_________________
VIRGINIA C. KELLY, Judge