Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2020-0234-PR
01-07-2021
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. STEVE EUGENE NOLTE, Petitioner.
Steve Nolte, Douglas 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 Maricopa County
No. CR1997010394A
The Honorable Christopher Coury, Judge
REVIEW DENIED
Steve Nolte, Douglas
In Propria Persona
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Eppich authored the decision of the Court, in which Chief Judge Vásquez and Judge Brearcliffe concurred. EPPICH, Presiding Judge:
¶1 Steve Nolte aka George France (Nolte) seeks review of the trial court's order summarily dismissing his notice of and petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. We will not disturb that ruling unless the court abused its discretion. See State v. Roseberry, 237 Ariz. 507, ¶ 7 (2015). Because Nolte has not complied with Rule 32, we deny review.
Nolte has signed his petition for review as "George" and maintains, as he did below, that he is George France, and not Steve Nolte. But Nolte's mother identified him as her son, Steve Nolte, at trial, a fact corroborated by the testimony of a DNA criminalist.
Our supreme court amended the post-conviction relief rules, effective January 1, 2020. Ariz. Sup. Ct. Order R-19-0012 (Aug. 29, 2019). "The amendments apply to all cases pending on the effective date unless a court determines that 'applying the rule or amendment would be infeasible or work an injustice.'" State v. Mendoza, 249 Ariz. 180, n.1 (App. 2020) (quoting Ariz. Sup. Ct. Order R-19-0012). "Because it is neither infeasible nor works an injustice here, we cite to and apply the current version of the rules." Id.
¶2 After a jury trial in 2016, Nolte was convicted of one count of fraudulent schemes and artifices and five counts of theft, offenses which he committed in 1997. The trial court sentenced Nolte to concurrent prison terms, the longest of which were 9.25 years, to be served consecutively to his sentence in another matter. We affirmed his convictions and sentences on appeal. State v. Nolte, No. 1 CA-CR 16-0594 (Ariz. App. Nov. 2, 2017) (mem. decision).
¶3 In 2017, Nolte filed a notice of post-conviction relief, and after appointed counsel filed a notice stating she had reviewed the record and found no colorable claim for relief under Rule 32, Nolte filed a pro se supplemental petition in May 2019. He alleged violations of both his right to a speedy trial and the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy; argued that the trial court had improperly admitted certain evidence at trial; and, asserted that he had been prevented from presenting a meaningful defense. He also maintained trial and appellate counsel had been ineffective by failing to raise these issues. In its November 2019 ruling summarily dismissing Nolte's petition, the court addressed each of Nolte's claims in turn, and then concluded he had failed to present a colorable claim for relief.
Although the trial court did not expressly rule on Nolte's related claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, we infer it likewise rejected them. --------
¶4 Although Nolte has filed what purports to be a petition for review of the trial court's ruling, it is essentially a verbatim copy of his petition for post-conviction relief, albeit with statements of the decision rendered by the court and the issues presented for review, and with some changes made to the title and signature pages. Notably, Nolte does not state why he believes the court improperly dismissed his petition, much less explain how it abused its discretion by doing so. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.16(c)(2)(D) (petition for review must contain "reasons why the appellate court should grant the petition"); Roseberry, 237 Ariz. 507, ¶ 7.
¶5 Nolte's failure to comply with Rule 32.16 justifies our refusal to grant review. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.16(k) (describing appellate review under Rule 32.16 as discretionary); State v. French, 198 Ariz. 119, ¶ 9 (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 (2002); cf. State v. Stefanovich, 232 Ariz. 154, ¶ 16 (App. 2013) (insufficient argument waives claim on review).
¶6 Accordingly, we deny review.