Opinion
2 CA-CR 2023-0142-PR
07-26-2023
The State of Arizona, Respondent, v. German Solis-Antonio, Petitioner.
German Solis-Antonio, Kingman In Propria Persona
NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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. CR2015136342002DT The Honorable Roy C. Whitehead, Judge REVIEW DENIED
German Solis-Antonio, Kingman In Propria Persona
Judge Kelly authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Brearcliffe and Judge Eckerstrom concurred.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
KELLY, Judge:
¶1 German Solis-Antonio seeks review of the superior court's ruling dismissing his successive petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Rule 33, Ariz. R. Crim. P. We deny review.
¶2 Pursuant to a 2017 plea agreement, Solis-Antonio was convicted of child abuse and attempted child abuse. The superior court sentenced him to seventeen years' imprisonment for child abuse and suspended the imposition of sentence and placed him on lifetime probation for the attempt offense. Thereafter, Solis-Antonio sought and was denied post-conviction relief.
¶3 In January 2023, Solis-Antonio filed a second petition for post-conviction relief, asserting claims under Rule 33.1(a), (e), and (h). In a memorandum attached to his petition, Solis-Antonio described several aspects of the pretrial and plea process, mentioning a litany of issues, including ineffective assistance of trial counsel, constitutional violations, the denial of his request for new counsel, conflicts of interest, language barriers, being forced to plead guilty, and actual innocence.
¶4 The next month, the superior court summarily dismissed Solis-Antonio's petition. As to Rule 33.1(a), the court determined that his claims were precluded because he either had raised them in his previous petition or he could have done so. As to Rule 33.1(e), the court observed that Solis-Antonio had not "provide[d] any new facts or evidence" to support relief but instead raised "a series of arguments rejected in his first Rule 33 proceeding." The court explained these were neither "facts" nor "new." Finally, as to Rule 33.1(h), the court determined that Solis-Antonio had failed to demonstrate "by clear and convincing evidence that the facts underlying the claim would be sufficient to establish that no reasonable fact-finder would find the defendant guilty of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt." This petition for review followed.
¶5 In his petition, Solis-Antonio asks this court to accept jurisdiction and conduct a de novo review. He seems to suggest the superior court erred by rejecting his claims in a "boilerplate" ruling, but he fails to develop any cognizable legal argument. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 33.16(c)(2)(B), (D) (petition for review must contain "statement of issues the trial court decided that the defendant is presenting for appellate review" and "reasons why the appellate court should grant the petition, including citations to supporting legal authority"). He also fails to cite any legal authority or record references supporting his position. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 33.16(c)(2)(C), (D). His failure to comply with our rules or present meaningful argument justifies our summary denial of review. See State v. French, 198 Ariz. 119, ¶ 9 (App. 2000) (summarily rejecting claims not complying with rule governing form and content of petitions for review), disapproved on other grounds by Stewart v. Smith, 202 Ariz. 446, ¶ 10 (2002); see also State v. Stefanovich, 232 Ariz. 154, ¶ 16 (App. 2013) (insufficient argument waives claim).
¶6 Accordingly, we deny review.