Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2018-0109-PR
08-29-2018
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. FRANCISCO JOHNNY RAMIREZ, Petitioner.
Francisco J. Ramirez, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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. CR20150118082DT
The Honorable Christopher Coury, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
Francisco J. Ramirez, Eloy
In Propria Persona
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Espinosa authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Vásquez and Judge Eppich concurred.
ESPINOSA, Judge:
¶1 Francisco Ramirez seeks review of the trial court's order summarily dismissing his untimely notice of post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. We will not disturb that ruling unless the court abused its discretion. See State v. Roseberry, 237 Ariz. 507, ¶ 7 (2015). Ramirez has not shown such abuse here.
¶2 Ramirez pled guilty to armed robbery and, in October 2016, was sentenced to a 10.5-year prison term. In late 2017, he filed a notice of and petition for post-conviction relief, as well as a "petition for review." In the latter filing, he asserted the state had failed to make various required disclosures and raised several complaints about counsel's performance. In the notice of and petition for post-conviction relief, he listed numerous other claims, including that his trial counsel had been ineffective, he was being held past the expiration of his sentence, there was newly discovered evidence, his failure to timely seek post-conviction relief was without fault on his part, and he was actually innocent. Treating Ramirez's filings as an untimely notice of post-conviction relief, the trial court summarily dismissed the proceeding. This petition for review followed.
¶3 On review, Ramirez abandons the bulk of the claims he listed in his notice and petition below and instead asserts only that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to explain certain evidence to him, communicate with him about his case, and adequately investigate his case before the state's plea offer expired. As the trial court explained in its ruling, however, claims of ineffective assistance cannot be raised in an untimely proceeding like this one. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.1(a), 32.4(a)(2)(A), (C). Ramirez has not established the court erred in summarily dismissing his post-conviction proceeding.
¶4 Although we grant review, relief is denied.