Summary
In Pfeiff, a prisoner incarcerated in ADOC wrote a letter to the trial court explaining that, despite having informed ADOC that he would be eligible for release after completing eighty-five percent of his sentence, ADOC had not recalculated his release date.
Summary of this case from State v. KenseyOpinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2019-0082-PR
05-24-2019
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. RICHARD KENNETH PFEIFF, Petitioner.
Richard Pfeiff, Kingman 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 Pima County
No. CR20080643001
The Honorable Casey F. McGinley, Judge
REVIEW DENIED
Richard Pfeiff, Kingman
In Propria Persona
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Vásquez authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Staring and Judge Brearcliffe concurred. VÁSQUEZ, Judge:
¶1 Richard Pfeiff seeks review of the trial court's order summarily denying his February 2019 letter to the trial court "Re: 85 percent Sentencing provision." For the reasons that follow, we deny review.
¶2 In 2008, Pfeiff pled guilty to attempted sexual conduct with a minor and attempted child molestation. The trial court imposed a five-year prison term for the first offense and suspended the imposition of sentence and placed Pfeiff on a fifteen-year term of probation for the second offense. In 2014, the state petitioned to revoke Pfeiff's probation, and, after Pfeiff admitted violating his probation terms, the court revoked his probation and imposed a ten-year prison term. We denied relief on Pfeiff's petition for review of the court's denial of his first post-conviction proceeding, filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. State v. Pfeiff, No. 2 CA-CR 2017-0369-PR (Ariz. App. July 30, 2018) (mem. decision).
¶3 In February 2019, Pfeiff wrote a "letter" to the trial court explaining that, despite having informed the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADOC) that he will be eligible for release after he completes eighty-five percent of his sentence, ADOC had not recalculated his release date. The court declined Pfeiff's request that it instruct ADOC it had miscalculated his release date. In a "letter" addressed to this court, which we have treated as a petition for review, Pfeiff criticizes the court's refusal to "take action" and asks that we "provide guidance" to help ADOC and the Time Computation Unit understand that he will be eligible for release after serving eighty-five percent of his sentence.
¶4 However, because there was no petition for post-conviction relief pending before the trial court, Pfeiff's pleading does not comply with Rule 32.9 in any meaningful way. Accordingly, our summary denial of review is justified. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(f) (appellate review under Rule 32.9 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).
Moreover, even if we were to liberally construe Pfeiff's letter to the trial court as a notice of post-conviction relief, it would have been precluded as a successive proceeding. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a). Nor did Pfeiff assert that his claim fell within one of the specific exceptions to preclusion or provide "the reasons for not raising the claim in a previous notice or petition, or for not raising the claim in a timely manner," as Rule 32.2(b) requires. --------
¶5 Therefore, we deny review.