Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2018-0153-PR
08-23-2018
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. CLAUDE RANGER III, Petitioner.
COUNSEL William G. Montgomery, Maricopa County Attorney By Lisa Marie Martin, Deputy County Attorney, Phoenix Counsel for Respondent Claude Ranger III, Florence 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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. CR2012005729001DT
The Honorable Cynthia J. Bailey, Judge
REVIEW DENIED
COUNSEL
William G. Montgomery, Maricopa County Attorney
By Lisa Marie Martin, Deputy County Attorney, Phoenix
Counsel for Respondent
Claude Ranger III, Florence
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 Claude Ranger III seeks review of the trial court's order dismissing his successive and untimely notice of post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. We deny review.
¶2 After a jury trial, Ranger was convicted of six counts of sexual assault and sentenced to concurrent and consecutive prison terms totaling thirty years. We affirmed his convictions and sentences on appeal. State v. Ranger, No. 1 CA-CR 14-0613 (Ariz. App. Feb. 2, 2016) (mem. decision). Before this proceeding Ranger has sought and been denied post-conviction relief on at least three occasions.
¶3 In January 2018, Ranger filed a request to "refile [his] Rule 32.1 proceedings" and, the following month, filed a notice of post-conviction relief. He identified ten grounds for relief, including "structural . . . error," "post-indictment delay," and "cumulative error." He also indicated, without explanation, that there has been a significant change in the law applicable to his case and that he was actually innocent. The trial court summarily dismissed the proceeding.
¶4 Ranger has filed in this court a "new issues" notice of appeal listing thirteen claims he describes as "colorable." We have deemed this filing a petition for review filed pursuant to Rule 32.9(c). Ranger has not identified any error made by the trial court, nor has he included any argument that he is entitled to relief. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(4)(B)(iv) (petition for review must contain "reasons why the appellate court should grant the petition, including citations to supporting legal authority, if known"), (f) (appellate review under Rule 32.9 discretionary); see also State v. Stefanovich, 232 Ariz. 154, ¶ 16 (App. 2013) (insufficient argument waives claim on review); 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).
¶5 Review is denied.