Opinion
2 CA-CR 2023-0141-PR
07-18-2023
The State of Arizona, Respondent, v. Rafael Solano Vega, Petitioner.
Rafael Solano Vega, Florence 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Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court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. CR2017140683001DT The Honorable Scott Minder, Judge
Rafael Solano Vega, Florence In Propria Persona
Vice Chief Judge Staring authored the decision of the Court, in which Judge Sklar and Judge O'Neil concurred.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
STARING, Vice Chief Judge:
¶1 Rafael Vega seeks review of the trial court's order summarily dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 33, Ariz. R. Crim. P. We deny review.
¶2 Vega pled guilty in 2018 to child molestation and two counts of attempted child molestation. The trial court sentenced him to a ten-year prison term for the first offense and, for the remaining offenses, suspended the imposition of sentence and placed Vega on lifetime probation. He sought and was denied post-conviction relief in 2020.
¶3 In April 2022, Vega filed a petition for post-conviction relief, citing Rule 33.17 and asking the trial court to order the state to "produce" "sex crime evidence kits" and a forensic interview of the victim. The court dismissed the proceeding on November 23, 2022, concluding Vega had identified no reason to conclude DNA testing "could potentially produce exculpatory evidence," particularly given there had been eyewitness corroboration of the victim's account. On January 11, 2023, Vega filed a motion for rehearing, which the court denied, noting it was untimely and, in any event, Vega had not "provide[d] a sufficient factual or legal basis to support rehearing." This petition for review followed.
¶4 On review, Vega asserts the trial court abused its discretion by denying his request for DNA testing and by ignoring assertions he had made in his reply to the state's response. However, as the court correctly noted, Vega's motion for rehearing was untimely because it was not filed within fifteen days of the court's ruling dismissing the petition for post-conviction relief. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 33.14(a). Vega has not challenged that finding on review. In the absence of any such argument, we cannot say the court abused its discretion in denying his motion for rehearing as untimely. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 33.16(c)(4) ("A party's failure to raise any issue that could be raised in the petition for review . . . constitutes a waiver of appellate review of that issue.").
¶5 Vega does not argue, let alone establish, that his petition for review from the untimely motion for rehearing allows us to review the trial court's order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 33.14, 33.16. Allowing an untimely motion for rehearing to revive Vega's ability to obtain review of the court's denial of his original petition for post-conviction relief would render meaningless the thirty-day deadline for filing a petition for review. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 33.16(a)(1). Moreover, Vega did not request and the court did not grant leave to file a delayed petition for review from its denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 33.16(a)(4).
¶6 Accordingly, we deny review.