Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 16-0369 PRPC
11-21-2017
STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. ANTHONY EDWARD RAIMONDE, Petitioner.
COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By David R. Cole Counsel for Respondent Anthony Edward Raimonde, San Luis Petitioner
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2011-145256-001
The Honorable Dawn M. Bergin, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL
Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix
By David R. Cole
Counsel for Respondent
Anthony Edward Raimonde, San Luis
Petitioner
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Jon W. Thompson delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Kent E. Cattani and Judge Paul J. McMurdie joined.
THOMPSON, Judge:
¶1 Anthony Edward Raimonde petitions this Court for review from the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure (Rule) 32. We have considered the petition for review and, for the reasons stated, grant review and deny relief.
¶2 A jury found Raimonde guilty of second-degree murder and misconduct involving weapons. The trial court imposed concurrent prison terms, and this Court, on direct appeal, affirmed Raimonde's convictions and sentences. Raimonde thereafter commenced a post-conviction relief proceeding, and he raised the following claims: (1) defective indictment; (2) "the charge of second degree murder was charged, instructed, and argued in a duplicitous manner[;]" (3) the trial court should not have instructed the jury on the lesser-included offense of manslaughter; (4) the trial was not fair due to a violation of Raimonde's speedy trial rights, "abusive limitation on presentation of defense[,]" and improper burden shifting; and (5) ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC). The trial court summarily dismissed Raimonde's petition, and Raimonde timely seeks review in this Court. We review for an abuse of discretion. State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19, 278 P.3d 1276, 1280 (2012).
¶3 We find no abuse of discretion. A trial court is authorized to summarily dismiss a Rule 32 proceeding based on preclusion. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a), 32.6(c). A claim is precluded if it was, or could have been, raised on direct appeal. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a)(1), (2). Aside from the IAC claim, all post-conviction claims Raimonde raised either were, or could have been, raised in his direct appeal. The trial court therefore properly dismissed those claims as precluded. See State v. Robinson, 153 Ariz. 191, 199, 735 P.2d 801, 809 (1987) ("We may affirm on any basis supported by the record.").
¶4 Regarding the IAC claim, Raimonde, in violation of Rule 32, presents no argument challenging the trial court's dismissal order. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(c)(1)(iv) ("The petition [for review] . . . shall contain . . . [t]he reasons why the petition should be granted.") (emphasis added). "[C]ompliance with Rule 32 is not a mere formality." Canion v. Cole, 210 Ariz. 598, 600, ¶ 11, 115 P.3d 1261, 1263 (2005). A petitioner must "strictly comply" with Rule 32 to be entitled to relief. Id.
¶5 Raimonde fails to establish the trial court's abuse of discretion in dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief. Accordingly, although we grant review, we deny relief.