Opinion
2 CA-CR 2021-0113-PR
01-28-2022
The State of Arizona, Respondent, v. Ronald Leslie Murray, Petitioner.
Ronald Leslie Murray, Florence 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 Not For Publication See Ariz.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. 31.19(e).
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Cochise County No. CR89000193 The Honorable John F. Kelliher Jr., Judge
Ronald Leslie Murray, Florence In Propria Persona
Presiding Judge Eppich authored the decision of the Court, in which Vice Chief Judge Staring and Judge Espinosa concurred.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
EPPICH, Presiding Judge
¶1 Petitioner Ronald Murray seeks review of the trial court's order dismissing his proceeding for post-conviction relief, initiated 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 (App. 2007). Murray has not sustained his burden of establishing such abuse here.
¶2 Following a jury trial, Murray was convicted of kidnapping, sexual assault, robbery, and two counts of theft by control. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent and consecutive prison terms that totaled forty-two years. This court affirmed the convictions and sentences on appeal, State v. Murray, No. 2 CA-CR 89-0564 (Ariz. App. Aug. 2, 1990) (mem. decision), but Murray successfully challenged the "flat-time" prison terms in a post-conviction proceeding; the supreme court granted relief based on its decision in State v. Tarango, 185 Ariz. 208 (1996). State v. Murray, 194 Ariz. 373 (1999). The trial court denied Murray relief in multiple post-conviction proceedings, and this court subsequently denied relief on review in a number of those proceedings. See State v. Murray, No. 2 CA-CR 2016-0368-PR (Ariz. App. Feb. 21, 2017) (mem. decision); State v. Murray, No. 2 CA-CR 2014-0161-PR (Ariz. App. Sept. 16, 2014) (mem. decision); State v. Murray, No. 2 CA-CR 2014-0003-PR (Ariz. App. May 21, 2014) (mem. decision); State v. Murray, No. 2 CA-CR 2012-0443-PR (Ariz. App. Feb. 13, 2013) (mem. decision); State v. Murray, Nos. 2 CA-CR 2008-0401-PR, 2 CA-CR 2008-0404-PR, 2 CA-CR 2008-0430-PR, 2 CA-CR 2009-0049-PR (Ariz. App. July 21, 2009) (consol. mem. decision); State v. Murray, No. 2 CA-CR 2007-0089-PR (Ariz. App. June 29, 2007) (mem. decision); State v. Murray, No. 2 CA-CR 2006-0145-PR (Ariz. App. Nov. 30, 2006) (mem. decision).
¶3 In 2021, Murray filed motions challenging the jurisdiction of the superior court, arguing it lacked jurisdiction due to an invalid indictment and the use of "out of state evidence" in his case. The trial court summarily denied relief, noting that Murray's "issues ha[d] been previously addressed."
¶4 On review, in a somewhat confusing argument, Murray again challenges the validity of the indictment, asserting "[t]here is no joint jurisdiction between New Mexico and Arizona." He does not, however, explain why the trial court was incorrect in determining that this claim was precluded because it was previously litigated. Indeed, claims challenging the jurisdiction of the court arise under Rule 32.1(b), and are subject to preclusion under Rule 32.2(a)(2), pursuant to Rule 32.2(b). Murray has waived any claim that the court misapplied Rule 32.2(b) by failing to address the court's ruling on this point. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.16(c)(2)(D); State v. Stefanovich, 232 Ariz. 154, ¶ 16 (App. 2013) (defendant waived claim when he did not "develop the argument in any meaningful way" on review).
Murray also for the first time raises claims regarding the "enacting clause" and other purported deficiencies in the Arizona Revised Statutes. We do not address claims raised for the first time on review. State v. Ramirez, 126 Ariz. 464, 468 (App. 1980); see also Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.16(c)(2)(B) (petition for review shall contain "issues the trial court decided that the defendant is presenting for appellate review").
¶5 Furthermore, claims arising under Rule 32.1(b) must be filed "within a reasonable time after discovering the basis of the claim." Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.4(b)(3)(B). Murray's alleged jurisdictional defect, relating to his indictment, has existed since the outset of the proceedings more than thirty years ago. Murray has not explained how this is a reasonable time. See Stefanovich, 232 Ariz. 154, ¶ 16. In any event, to the extent we understand Murray's argument, even accepting that some part of the evidence against him was found in another state, "[a] defendant who commits only part of an offense in Arizona cannot invoke the [Constitutional] vicinage clause as a shield from prosecution in Arizona." State v. Willoughby, 181 Ariz. 530, 543 (1995).
Although we acknowledge that subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived, see State v. Jackson, 208 Ariz. 56, ¶ 21 (App. 2004), Murray has cited no authority suggesting the timeliness requirements of Rule 32.4 do not apply to jurisdictional claims. As this court has observed, the time limits of Rule 32.4 are not grounded in waiver. State v. Lopez, 234 Ariz. 513, ¶ 8 (App. 2014).
¶6 Although we grant the petition for review, we deny relief.