Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2014-0161-PR
09-16-2014
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24.
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Cochise County
No. CR89000193
The Honorable John F. Kelliher Jr., Judge
REVIEW DENIED
Ronald Leslie Murray, Florence
In Propria Persona
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Espinosa authored the decision of the Court, in which Chief Judge Eckerstrom and Presiding Judge Miller concurred.
ESPINOSA, Judge:
¶1 Petitioner Ronald Murray seeks review of the trial court's order denying various motions filed in his criminal case, including a "Motion for Release of Lien on Real Property" and a motion pursuant to Rule 60(c), Ariz. R. Civ. P. We will not reverse a trial court's rulings in post-conviction proceedings "absent a clear abuse of discretion." State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390, ¶ 4, 166 P.3d 945, 948 (App. 2007). Murray has not sustained his burden of establishing such abuse here.
¶2 After 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 totaling forty-two years. Murray's convictions and sentences were affirmed on appeal, State v. Murray, No. 2 CA-CR 89-0564 (memorandum decision filed Aug. 2, 1990), and he subsequently sought post-conviction relief in at least a dozen proceedings.
¶3 In February 2014, Murray filed three separate motions, requesting discovery in relation to certain bonds and securities, the release of a lien on real property, and seeking to vacate judgment pursuant to Rule 60(c), Ariz. R. Civ. P., claiming fraud in relation to his criminal conviction, particularly as to a "security which is providing an income stream to the court." Stating it could not "fathom [Murray's] . . . pleadings," the trial court denied the motions.
¶4 Murray then filed in this court a document entitled "Petition for Review/Appeal," again raising claims about a particular security and arguing the trial court had a conflict of
interest and had erred in rejecting his motions. Like the trial court, we do not fully understand Murray's motions or petition for review. But Rule 60(c) does not apply to a criminal action, so the trial court properly denied Murray's motions insofar as he sought relief under that rule. See Ariz. R. Civ. P. 1 (civil rules apply in cases "of a civil nature"). And to the extent Murray's motions raised claims of fraud, such claims cannot be raised in a post-conviction criminal proceeding, but must be pled with particularity in a civil action. See Ariz. R. Civ. P. 9(b). Therefore, the trial court properly dismissed Murray's motions on that ground as well.
¶5 No cognizable claims having been raised, review is denied.