Opinion
2 CA-CR 2023-0103-PR
06-01-2023
The State of Arizona, Respondent, v. Cory A. Singleton, Petitioner.
Cory A. Singleton, Yuma 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Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court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. CR2018001983001DT The Honorable Kerstin LeMaire, Judge
Cory A. Singleton, Yuma In Propria Persona
Judge O'Neil authored the decision of the Court, in which Vice Chief Judge Staring and Judge Kelly concurred.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
O'NEIL, JUDGE
¶1 Cory Singleton seeks review of the trial court's ruling denying his successive 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. Martinez, 226 Ariz. 464, ¶ 6 (App. 2011). Singleton has not met his burden of establishing such abuse here.
¶2 After a jury trial, Singleton was convicted of possession or use of dangerous drugs and possession of drug paraphernalia. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent prison terms, the longer of which is ten years. This court affirmed his convictions and sentences on appeal. State v. Singleton, No. 1 CA-CR 19-0061 (Ariz. App. Sept. 12, 2019) (mem. decision). Thereafter, Singleton sought and was denied post-conviction relief. This court dismissed his untimely petition for review of that proceeding. State v. Singleton, No. 1 CA-CR 21-0209 PRPC (Ariz. App. June 3, 2021) (order).
¶3 In July 2022, Singleton filed a notice of post-conviction relief, summarily asserting various claims and maintaining that the untimeliness was not his fault due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The following month, the trial court dismissed his notice, concluding that his claims were precluded or meritless. In September 2022, Singleton filed a petition for post-conviction relief, asserting claims under Rule 32.1(a), (b), (e), (f), (g), and (h). The thrust of his argument seemed to be that because he had been acquitted of an aggravated assault "that le[]d to the probable cause" to search his backpack, the drugs and paraphernalia found inside were "fruit of the poisonous tree" and his convictions for those offenses could not stand. Singleton also filed a motion to excuse his untimeliness, again asserting that a five-month COVID-19 lockdown at the prison had prevented him from filing his petition. The following month, the court summarily dismissed the petition, its explanation essentially mirroring its August 2022 ruling. This petition for review followed.
Singleton filed an "Appeal from Superior Court's Conviction." However, given the timing, and because he appears to be challenging the trial court's October 2022 ruling, we treat the filing as a petition for review.
¶4 On review, Singleton again reasons that "the probable cause for contact and arrest" was "an alleged aggravated assault but since [he] was found not guilty on the aggravated assault charge," the evidence of possession or use of dangerous drugs and possession of drug paraphernalia "became fruit of the poisonous tree." He therefore asks this court to vacate his convictions.
We do not address Singleton's other claims asserted below but not raised on review. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.16(c)(4) ("A party's failure to raise any issue that could be raised in the petition for review or cross-petition for review constitutes a waiver of appellate review of that issue.").
¶5 But Singleton does not explain how the trial court erred in finding his claim precluded. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.16(c)(2) (petition must include reasons why appellate court should grant petition); State v. Stefanovich, 232 Ariz. 154, ¶ 16 (App. 2013) (defendant waived claim when he did not "develop the argument in any meaningful way" on review). Indeed, this appears to be a constitutional claim arising under Rule 32.1(a). As such, it is precluded in this successive proceeding. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a)(3). His claim is also untimely, and Singleton failed to adequately explain why the failure to timely file was not his fault. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.4(b)(3)(A), (D). As the trial court pointed out, Singleton failed to support his claim that the untimeliness was due to COVID-19 and the record reflects that he had filed several documents between 2020 and 2022. The court therefore did not abuse its discretion in summarily dismissing the petition. See Martinez, 226 Ariz. 464, ¶ 6.
¶6 Accordingly, we grant review but deny relief.