Opinion
2 CA-CR 2023-0229-PR
03-27-2024
The State of Arizona, Respondent, v. Gilbert Gonzales Olivas, Petitioner.
Gilbert Olivas, Florence In Propria Persona
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Pima County No. CR20102517002 The Honorable Christopher Browning, Judge
Gilbert Olivas, Florence In Propria Persona
Presiding Judge Brearcliffe authored the decision of the Court, in which Judge Kelly and Judge Sklar concurred.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
BREARCLIFFE, PRESIDING JUDGE
¶1 Gilbert Olivas seeks review of the trial court's order summarily dismissing his successive petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. We deny review.
¶2 After a jury trial, Olivas was convicted of two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and one count each of vehicle theft, armed robbery, and aggravated robbery. His appeal was dismissed, however, when he failed to timely file his opening brief. He was sentenced to an aggregate 21.25-year sentence following a 2019 resentencing. We affirmed that aggregate sentence on appeal. State v. Olivas, No. 2 CA-CR 2019-0254 (Ariz. App. June 11, 2020) (mem. decision). Olivas has sought and been denied post-conviction relief numerous times. State v. Olivas, No. 2 CA-CR 2022-0147-PR (Ariz. App. Jan. 11, 2023) (mem. decision); State v. Olivas, No. 2 CA-CR 2022-0078-PR (Ariz. App. Aug. 4, 2022) (mem. decision); State v. Olivas, No. 2 CA-CR 2014-0350-PR (Ariz. App. Jan. 28, 2015) (mem. decision).
¶3 In March 2023, Olivas filed a petition for post-conviction relief claiming that his trial counsel had been ineffective for various reasons and that he had been denied his right to counsel in his first post-conviction proceeding because he was forced to choose between incompetent counsel or self-representation. He asserted his claims were not precluded because they fell under United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984), instead of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). The trial court summarily dismissed the petition, concluding that the claims were precluded and untimely and, in any event, that Olivas had not demonstrated he was entitled to relief under Cronic. This petition for review followed.
¶4 In his petition for review, Olivas does not address the bulk of claims he raised below. He again argues he was denied counsel in his first post-conviction proceeding. And he argues, for the first time, that this court erred by allowing him to represent himself on appeal without first holding a hearing pursuant to Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), to determine if his waiver of his right to counsel was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. But he does not address the trial court's ruling, including its determination that his claims were untimely and precluded.
¶5 Olivas has waived most of the claims he raised below by failing to raise them in his petition for review. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.16(c)(4). He has not attempted to identify error in the trial court's order dismissing his petition. See State v. Stefanovich, 232 Ariz. 154, ¶ 16 (App. 2013) (claim waived on review because defendant cites no relevant authority and does not develop argument in meaningful way). And we do not address claims raised for the first time in a petition for review. See State v. Ramirez, 126 Ariz. 464, 468 (App. 1980). Insofar as Olivas attempts to invoke our special action jurisdiction, we decline to exercise that jurisdiction to review events that occurred over ten years ago. See Anserv Ins. Servs., Inc. v. Albrecht, 192 Ariz. 48, ¶¶ 10-11 (1998) (denying relief due to several-month delay in filing special action petition); see also A.R.S. § 12-120.21(A)(4).
¶6 For these reasons, we deny review.