Opinion
2 CA-CR 2020-0241-PR
08-11-2021
The State of Arizona, Respondent, v. Bobby Taylor, Petitioner.
Bobby Taylor, Kingman In Propria Persona
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Pinal County No. S1100CR201603012 The Honorable Kevin D. White, Judge
Bobby Taylor, Kingman In Propria Persona
Vice Chief Judge Staring authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Espinosa and Judge Eckerstrom concurred.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
STARING, VICE CHIEF JUDGE
¶1 Bobby Taylor seeks review of the trial court's ruling summarily dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 33, Ariz. R. Crim. P. We will not disturb that order unless the court abused its discretion. See State v. Roseberry, 237 Ariz. 507, ¶ 7 (2015). Taylor has not shown such abuse here.
Our supreme court amended the post-conviction relief rules, effective January 1, 2020. Ariz. Sup. Ct. Order R-19-0012 (Aug. 29, 2019). "The amendments apply to all cases pending on the effective date unless a court determines that 'applying the rule or amendment would be infeasible or work an injustice.'" State v. Mendoza, 249 Ariz. 180, n.1 (App. 2020) (quoting Ariz. Sup. Ct. Order R-19-0012). "Because it is neither infeasible nor works an injustice here, we cite to and apply the current version of the rules" except where otherwise noted. Id.
¶2 Taylor pled guilty to child molestation, attempted child molestation, and two counts of attempted sexual conduct with a minor. The trial court sentenced him to a twenty-year prison term for child molestation and, for the remaining counts, suspended the imposition of sentence and placed him on consecutive terms of lifetime probation.
¶3 Taylor sought post-conviction relief, and appointed counsel filed a notice stating she had reviewed the record but found "no colorable claims" to raise in a post-conviction proceeding. Taylor then filed a pro se petition arguing his guilty plea was not voluntary, knowing, or intelligent because he suffered from "mental health issues" and an "intellectual disability," and had been "pressured" by the trial court, the state, and his counsel to accept the plea. He further claimed the state had misled the court and "withheld crucial exculpatory facts." He also asserted counsel had been ineffective in failing to investigate his case, to adequately "pursue a defense" by seeking to suppress incriminating statements he had made and file a motion for a mental-health evaluation pursuant to Rule 11, Ariz. R. Crim. P., and failing to advise him about his plea-including advising him he could plead no contest rather than guilty. Last, Taylor claimed the state had failed to disclose exculpatory evidence and supply him with a presentence report. The court summarily dismissed Taylor's petition. This petition for review followed.
¶4 In his petition for review, Taylor asserts he is entitled to withdraw from his "forced" guilty plea. He first argues the trial court should have sua sponte ordered "a Psycho-sexual evaluation" to ensure he "understood his charges and comprehend[ed] his options," or, alternatively, trial counsel should have "advised [him] not to accept the plea." To the extent he raised this claim below, he does not develop this argument in any meaningful way and, accordingly, has waived it on review. See State v. Stefanovich, 232 Ariz. 154, ¶ 16 (App. 2013). For the same reason, we do not address his claims that he pled guilty because his counsel was not prepared for trial or that counsel was deficient for failing to advise him of a possible no-contest plea. See id. In lieu of proper argument, it appears Taylor attempts to incorporate by reference his reply to the state's response filed below. That procedure does not comply with our rules. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 33.16(d); State v. Hess, 231 Ariz. 80, ¶ 13 (App. 2012). Nor need we consider Taylor's belated attempt to develop these arguments in his reply brief. See State v. Ramirez, 126 Ariz. 464, 468 (App. 1980). Finally, insofar as Taylor argues he would not have pled guilty had he been able to view recordings of one of the victim's interviews, he did not raise this claim below. Thus, we do not address it. See id.
¶5 We grant review but deny relief.