Opinion
2 CA-CR 2023-0019-PR
02-16-2023
The State of Arizona, Respondent, v. Edward Paul Moss, Petitioner.
Edward Paul Moss, Florence In Propria Persona
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR0000120618 The Honorable Joseph Kreamer, Judge
Edward Paul Moss, Florence In Propria Persona
Vice Chief Judge Staring authored the decision of the Court, in which Judge Sklar and Judge O'Neil concurred.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
STARING, VICE CHIEF JUDGE:
¶1 Petitioner Edward Paul Moss seeks review of the trial court's order dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Rule 33, 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. Ainsworth, 250 Ariz. 457, ¶ 1 (App. 2021) (quoting State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390, ¶ 4 (App. 2007)). Moss has not sustained his burden of establishing such abuse here.
¶2 Pursuant to a plea agreement, Moss entered a plea pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970), and was convicted in 1981 of two counts of sexual assault. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent eight-year prison terms. Moss thereafter sought post-conviction relief in 1984 and 2019. He sought review of the trial court's denial of his 2019 petition and was denied relief. State v. Moss, No. 1 CA-CR 19-0177 PRPC (Ariz. App. Nov. 19, 2019) (mem. decision).
¶3 In March 2021, Moss filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in Pinal County. Pinal County deemed the petition one for post-conviction relief and transferred the matter to Maricopa County. In his petition and subsequent filings, Moss argued that the trial court lacked "subject matter jurisdiction," that various constitutional rights had been violated, and that he was actually innocent. The court summarily dismissed the petition, determining Moss's claims were either untimely or precluded.
¶4 On review, Moss argues the trial court abused its discretion by denying relief. He again argues the court lacked "subject matter jurisdiction" and he is innocent. As the court determined, however, Moss's claims either were or could have been raised in previous proceedings. They are therefore precluded or untimely, and Moss did not explain his failure to timely raise his claims. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 33.2(a)(2), (3); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 33.4(b)(3). Thus, the court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting them.
¶5 We grant the petition for review but deny relief.