Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2017-0355-PR
05-23-2018
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. CARINA SUNRISE STRICKLAND, Petitioner.
COUNSEL Michael G. Rankin, Tucson City Attorney Alan L. Merritt, Deputy City Attorney By Mari L. Worman, Associate Prosecuting City Attorney, Tucson Counsel for Respondent Carina Strickland, Tucson 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 Pima County
No. CR20163848001
The Honorable Casey F. McGinley, Judge Pro Tempore
DECLINE JURISDICTION
COUNSEL
Michael G. Rankin, Tucson City Attorney
Alan L. Merritt, Deputy City Attorney
By Mari L. Worman, Associate Prosecuting City Attorney, Tucson
Counsel for Respondent
Carina Strickland, Tucson
In Propria Persona
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Eppich authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Vásquez and Judge Espinosa concurred.
EPPICH, Judge:
¶1 Carina Strickland seeks review of the superior court's denial of her petition seeking review of the city court's denial of her petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. For the reasons that follow, we construe Strickland's filing as a petition for special action and, in our discretion, decline to exercise special action jurisdiction.
¶2 After a bench trial, Strickland was convicted in city court of criminal damage; the court placed her on a twenty-four month term of unsupervised probation. The superior court affirmed her conviction and disposition on appeal.
¶3 Strickland then filed in the city court a petition for post-conviction relief, which the court denied. The superior court denied her subsequent petition for review. Strickland filed a notice of appeal from that ruling, attaching a "motion to reconsider" the superior court's ruling, which this court construed as a petition for review filed pursuant to Rule 32.9(c).
¶4 The only method by which a defendant like Strickland, whose petition for review has been denied by the superior court, may seek review in this court is by filing a petition for special action. State v. Aguilar, 170 Ariz. 292, 294-95 (App. 1991). Our Rules of Criminal Procedure do not permit a party to seek review in this court of a superior court's denial of a petition for review filed pursuant to Rule 32.9(c). Id.; see also Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.21(a), 32.9(g). And, A.R.S. § 22-375 prohibits review on appeal to this court of "a final judgment of the superior court in an action appealed from a justice of the peace or municipal court," unless "the action involves the validity of a tax, impost, assessment, toll, municipal fine or statute." See Aguilar, 170 Ariz. at 295. Thus, "[t]his court has no jurisdiction to consider any issue under Rule 32 that falls outside section 22-375." Id. Strickland has not argued the criminal damage statute is invalid.
¶5 Pursuant to Aguilar, we construe Strickland's filing as a petition for special action. See id. at 295-96. However, in our discretion, we decline to accept jurisdiction. See Forty-Seventh Legislature v. Napolitano, 213 Ariz. 482, ¶ 11 (2006) (decision to accept special action jurisdiction "highly discretionary"). Strickland has not identified any issue warranting extraordinary review, instead raising fact-dependent claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and newly discovered evidence. See Orme Sch. v. Reeves, 166 Ariz. 301, 303 (1990) (special action jurisdiction proper when question presented "is a pure issue of law, requiring neither factual review nor interpretation").
¶6 We decline special action jurisdiction.