Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2018-0261-PR
12-27-2018
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. RONALD PAUL PIEDRA, Petitioner.
COUNSEL Kent P. Volkmer, Pinal County Attorney By Geraldine L. Roll, Deputy County Attorney, Florence Counsel for Respondent Ronald P. Piedra, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 Pinal County
No. S1100CR201400265
The Honorable Lawrence M. Wharton, Judge Pro Tempore
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL Kent P. Volkmer, Pinal County Attorney
By Geraldine L. Roll, Deputy County Attorney, Florence
Counsel for Respondent Ronald P. Piedra, Kingman
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 Petitioner Ronald Piedra seeks review of the trial court's order denying his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. "We will not disturb a trial court's ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief absent a clear abuse of discretion." State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390, ¶ 4 (App. 2007). Piedra has not sustained his burden of establishing such abuse here.
¶2 Pursuant to a plea agreement, Piedra was convicted of child molestation and attempted sexual conduct with a minor. The trial court sentenced him to a twenty-year prison term, to be followed by lifetime probation. Piedra sought and was denied post-conviction relief twice, and this court denied relief on a petition for review in the second proceeding. State v. Piedra, No. 2 CA-CR 2016-0335-PR (Ariz. App. Dec. 21, 2016) (mem. decision).
¶3 Piedra initiated another proceeding for post-conviction relief in June 2017, arguing the trial court erred in ordering him to serve a lifetime term of probation and that the term "constitutes an illegal sentence." The trial court summarily denied relief.
¶4 On review, Piedra again argues his lifetime probation was illegal and the trial court erred in imposing it. But a claim that "the sentence imposed exceeds the maximum authorized by law" is precluded in an untimely, successive proceeding such as this one. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.1(c), 32.2(a)(3). Piedra has not established that his claim falls within any exception to preclusion. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b). Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief.
Piedra also argues counsel was required to comply with the procedure set forth in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). But Piedra raises this claim for the first time on review, see State v. Ramirez, 126 Ariz. 464, 468 (App. 1980), and, in any event, he is not entitled to that procedure, see State v. Chavez, 243 Ariz. 313, ¶ 1 (2017). --------
¶5 We grant the petition for review, but deny relief.