Opinion
2 CA-CR 2023-0139-PR
07-21-2023
The State of Arizona, Respondent, v. Robert Douglas Rowley IV, Petitioner.
Rachel H. Mitchell, Maricopa County Attorney By Douglas Gerlach, Deputy County Attorney, Phoenix Counsel for Respondent Robert Douglas Rowley IV, Kingman In Propria Persona
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2014139487001DT The Honorable Jay Ryan Adleman, Judge
Rachel H. Mitchell, Maricopa County Attorney By Douglas Gerlach, Deputy County Attorney, Phoenix Counsel for Respondent
Robert Douglas Rowley IV, Kingman In Propria Persona
Presiding Judge Brearcliffe authored the decision of the Court, in which Judge Eckerstrom and Judge Kelly concurred.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
BREARCLIFFE, PRESIDING JUDGE
¶1 Robert Rowley IV seeks review of the trial court's order summarily dismissing his petition for 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). Rowley has not met his burden of establishing such abuse here.
¶2 After a jury trial, Rowley was convicted of child molestation and sexual abuse. The trial court sentenced him to a 13.5-year prison term for child molestation and, for sexual abuse, suspended the imposition of sentence and placed Rowley on lifetime probation. We affirmed on appeal his convictions, sentence, and the imposition of probation. State v. Rowley, No. 1 CA-CR 17-0395 (Ariz. App. Sept. 9, 2019) (mem. decision).
¶3 Rowley then sought post-conviction relief. He argued that the state had "induce[ed]" "known false testimony" from the victim, that trial counsel had been ineffective in failing to adequately "pursue" DNA evidence and "eyewitness alibi testimony," that an additional analysis of the DNA evidence was newly discovered evidence, and that no reasonable factfinder could find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in light of the DNA evidence, alibi evidence, and the victim's purported recantation. The trial court summarily dismissed the proceeding. This petition for review followed.
¶4 In his pro se petition for review, Rowley appears to abandon the claims he raised below. As we understand his arguments, he instead asserts that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to adequately cross-examine the victim or otherwise develop a defense that he had been asleep when the victim had sexual relations with him, and he thus could not have formed the requisite intent to commit child molestation or sexual abuse. We do not address arguments raised for the first time in a petition for review. See State v. Ramirez, 126 Ariz. 464, 468 (App. 1980).
¶5 We grant review but deny relief. No. 2 CA-CR 2023-0139-PR July 21, 2023