Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2017-0183-PR
08-30-2017
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. MANUEL ALEJANDRO LORD, Petitioner.
Manuel A. Lord, Buckeye In Propria Persona
THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24. Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Pima County
No. CR20123501002
The Honorable Javier Chon-Lopez, Judge
REVIEW DENIED
Manuel A. Lord, Buckeye
In Propria Persona
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Vásquez authored the decision of the Court, in which Judge Eppich and Judge Howard concurred. VÁSQUEZ, Presiding Judge:
The Hon. Joseph W. Howard, a retired judge of this court, is called back to active duty to serve on this case pursuant to orders of this court and our supreme court.
¶1 Manuel Lord seeks review of the trial court's summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. "We will not disturb a trial court's ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief absent a clear abuse of discretion." State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390, ¶ 4, 166 P.3d 945, 948 (App. 2007). Because Lord has not complied with Rule 32.9, we deny review.
¶2 In October 2013, a jury found Lord guilty of possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited possessor. Lord absconded before the verdict was announced and was subsequently arrested pursuant to a warrant in September 2014. The trial court sentenced him to an enhanced, presumptive, ten-year prison term. Lord filed a timely notice of post-conviction relief, and appointed counsel notified the court she could find "no grounds upon which to file a Rule 32 petition."
According to the trial court, Lord was unable to appeal from his conviction and sentence because his voluntary absence delayed sentencing for more than ninety days. See A.R.S. § 13-4033(C). --------
¶3 Lord then filed a pro se petition in which he challenged the timeliness of the interim complaint filed in justice court and alleged his attorney had been ineffective in failing to seek a remand or dismissal of the supervening indictment. He also alleged he had signed a plea agreement that provided for a 4.5-year prison term but had been deprived of transcripts of a settlement conference and change-of-plea hearing that would support this allegation. After addressing these claims in a thorough, seven-page ruling, the trial court concluded Lord had "failed to state an[y] material issue of fact or law" that would entitle him to relief, and it dismissed his petition. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.6(c) (identifying standard for summary dismissal of Rule 32 petition). This petition for review followed.
¶4 As the only issue presented for review, Lord asserts the trial court abused its discretion "by not ordering an evidentiary hearing," and he asks this court "to review the entire Rule 32 proceeding[s] and the superior court record for fundamental and structural error." His petition for review contains no description of the issues decided by the trial court or facts material to our consideration of those issues, and he does not explain how the court abused its discretion in rejecting his claims, as required by the relevant rule. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1) (petition for review shall contain issues "decided by the trial court . . . which the defendant wishes to present to the appellate court for review," "[t]he facts material to a consideration of th[ose] issues," and "[t]he reasons why the petition should be granted"). Rule 32.9(c)(1) does not provide for review of the full record below.
¶5 Lord's failure to comply with Rule 32.9 justifies our summary refusal to grant review. See Ariz . R. Crim. P. 32.9(f) (describing appellate review under Rule 32.9 as discretionary); State v. French, 198 Ariz. 119, ¶ 9, 7 P.3d 128, 131 (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, 46 P.3d 1067, 1071 (2002); cf. State v. Bolton, 182 Ariz. 290, 298, 896 P.2d 830, 838 (1995) (insufficient argument waives claim on appellate review). Accordingly, we deny review.