Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 14-0733 PRPC
09-19-2017
STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. RICHARD RAMSEY, Petitioner.
COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Diane Meloche Counsel for Respondent Richard Ramsey, St. Johns Petitioner Pro Se
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. CR2011-123891-001
The Honorable Robert E. Miles, Judge, Retired
REVIEW GRANTED AND RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix
By Diane Meloche
Counsel for Respondent Richard Ramsey, St. Johns
Petitioner Pro Se
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Randall M. Howe delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Kenton D. Jones and Judge Donn Kessler joined. HOWE, Judge:
The Honorable Donn Kessler, Retired Judge of the Court of Appeals, Division One, has been authorized to sit in this matter pursuant to Article VI, Section 3 of the Arizona Constitution.
¶1 Richard Ramsey petitions this Court for review from the summary dismissal of his fourth successive notice of post-conviction relief. Ramsey argues that he has newly discovered evidence regarding his burglary conviction: the restitution ledger, which, he claims, showed that he was ordered to pay restitution for a different burglary than the one he pled guilty to. He further argues that Stewart v. Smith, 536 U.S. 856 (2002), provides that he can raise this claim in state court in an untimely fashion. We have considered the petition for review and, for the reasons stated, grant review but deny relief.
Ramsey raised additional claims below that he does not present for review.
¶2 Ramsey's claim is untimely and could have been raised in a previous post-conviction relief proceeding. Ramsey conceded in his notice that he obtained the newly discovered evidence in March 2014. This was four months before Ramsey filed his third successive notice of post-conviction relief. In that third notice, Ramsey raised the same restitution claim. The only material difference between that claim and the claim here is that Ramsey now identifies a specific dollar amount, something he could have done in his third notice based on the same "new" evidence. Any claim a defendant raised or could have raised in an earlier post-conviction relief proceeding is precluded. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a). None of the exceptions under Rule 32.2(b) apply. Finally, nothing in Stewart requires that a state court consider untimely claims raised in post-conviction proceedings.
While these are not the grounds upon which the trial court dismissed the petition, we may affirm a result on any basis supported by the record. State v. Wassenaar, 215 Ariz. 565, 577 ¶ 50 (2007). --------
¶3 Accordingly, although we grant review, we deny relief.