Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2017-0379-PR
02-26-2018
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. MATTHEW ELLIOTT PETERSEN, Petitioner.
COUNSEL William G. Montgomery, Maricopa County Attorney By Adena J. Astrowsky, Deputy County Attorney, Phoenix Counsel for Respondent Matthew Elliott Petersen, Eloy 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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. CR2013428984001DT
The Honorable Peter C. Reinstein, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL William G. Montgomery, Maricopa County Attorney
By Adena J. Astrowsky, Deputy County Attorney, Phoenix
Counsel for Respondent Matthew Elliott Petersen, Eloy
In Propria Persona
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Eppich authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Vásquez and Judge Espinosa concurred. EPPICH, Judge:
¶1 Matthew Petersen seeks review of the trial court's order summarily denying his petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. We will not disturb that order unless the court abused its discretion. See State v. Roseberry, 237 Ariz. 507, ¶ 7 (2015). We grant review but deny relief.
¶2 After a jury trial, Petersen was convicted of first-degree burglary and sentenced to a thirteen-year prison term. We affirmed his conviction and sentence on appeal. State v. Petersen, No. 1 CA-CR 14-0679 (Ariz. App. Jan. 5, 2016) (mem. decision). Petersen sought post-conviction relief, and appointed counsel filed a notice stating he had reviewed the record but found no claims to raise under Rule 32.
¶3 Petersen then filed a pro se petition, arguing his trial, appellate, and Rule 32 counsel had been ineffective, the indictment was defective, the trial court erred by denying his motion to access the crime scene, the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, and the state lacked "sufficient evidence" to charge him with first-degree burglary. The trial court summarily denied relief. It concluded that Petersen's claims not based on ineffective assistance were precluded and that his claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel was not colorable. This petition for review followed.
The court did not address Petersen's claims of ineffective assistance of Rule 32 or appellate counsel. But, beyond listing the claims and asserting that he is challenging the court's ruling, Petersen does not develop any argument on review pertinent to these claims. Accordingly, we do not address them. See State v. Stefanovich, 232 Ariz. 154, ¶ 16 (App. 2013).
¶4 On review, Petersen asserts the trial court improperly denied his claims of ineffective assistance as "precluded or waived at trial" and, citing Stewart v. Smith, 202 Ariz. 446 (2002), argues he is entitled to raise those claims because he did not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waive them. But Petersen misinterprets the court's ruling. It did not find his claims of ineffective assistance were precluded, it found they were not colorable. And, although Petersen asserts in passing that the court erred by doing so, he does not develop that argument in any meaningful way. Accordingly, we do not address it. See State v. Stefanovich, 232 Ariz. 154, ¶ 16 (App. 2013) (insufficient argument waives claim on review). Nor does he meaningfully argue the court erred by finding precluded his claims not grounded in ineffective assistance. See id.
In Stewart, our supreme court explained that claims of sufficient constitutional magnitude to require a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver were not subject to preclusion under Rule 32.2(a)(3). 202 Ariz. 446, ¶ 12. --------
¶5 We grant review but deny relief.