Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 16-0358 PRPC
08-31-2017
STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. DERRICK A. MORRIS, Petitioner.
COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Diane Meloche Counsel for Respondent Derrick A. Morris, San Luis 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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 Maricopa County
No. CR 2002-013178
The Honorable Jose S. Padilla, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix
By Diane Meloche
Counsel for Respondent Derrick A. Morris, San Luis
Petitioner
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Chief Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop and Judge James P. Beene joined. THUMMA, Chief Judge,:
¶1 Petitioner Derrick A. Morris seeks review of the superior court's order denying his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1 (2017). Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will not disturb a superior court's ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief. State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577 ¶ 19 (2012). Because Morris has shown no such error, this court grants review but denies relief.
Absent material revisions after the relevant dates, statutes and rules cited refer to the current version unless otherwise indicated. --------
¶2 In September 2005, a jury found Morris guilty of first degree murder and attempted armed robbery, both committed in July 2002. For the murder conviction, the superior court imposed a life sentence to be served concurrently with a 7.5-year term for the attempted robbery conviction. On direct appeal, this Court affirmed and the mandate issued in March 2007.
¶3 Later in 2007, Morris filed an untimely notice of post-conviction relief, which was summarily dismissed. In April 2013, Morris filed a notice of post-conviction relief, which was dismissed, and this court granted review but denied relief.
¶4 Morris continued to file notices of, and petitions for, post-conviction relief, all of which were summarily dismissed. Morris titled his penultimate submission — and sixth request for post-conviction relief — a "Petition For Writ Of Habeas Corpus." Apparently treating this filing as one seeking post-conviction relief, the superior court denied the petition. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.3. Less than two months later, Morris refiled the petition. Treating that filing as a motion for reconsideration, the superior court denied the motion. These rulings are the subject of the current petition for review.
¶5 The superior court did not err in dismissing Morris's sixth post-conviction proceeding. A Rule 32 proceeding may be summarily dismissed when precluded. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a), 32.6(c). A claim is precluded when it "has been waived at trial, on appeal or in any previous collateral proceeding." Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a)(3). Because Morris could have raised his claim of a jury irregularity in his direct appeal, and he could have raised his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in a prior Rule 32 proceeding, his claims were precluded.
¶6 For these reasons, this court grants review but denies relief.