Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 15-0802 PRPC
09-19-2017
STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. DOYLE WAYNE WILLIAMS, Petitioner.
COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Diane Meloche Counsel for Respondent Doyle Wayne Williams, Florence Petitioner
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR 0000-060583
The Honorable Joan M. Sinclair, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL
Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix
By Diane Meloche
Counsel for Respondent
Doyle Wayne Williams, Florence
Petitioner
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Jon W. Thompson and Judge Paul J. McMurdie joined.
CATTANI, Judge:
¶1 Doyle Wayne Williams petitions for review from the superior court's summary dismissal of his third petition for post-conviction relief. For reasons that follow, we grant review but deny relief.
¶2 In 1970, a jury found Williams guilty of first degree murder, and the superior court imposed a life sentence. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence on appeal. See State v. Williams, 107 Ariz. 262 (1971). Williams unsuccessfully sought post-conviction relief in 1975 (asserting constitutional violations and ineffective assistance of counsel) and 1999 (asserting that the governor's denial of the clemency board's commutation recommendation was not effective).
¶3 In August 2015, Williams filed an untimely and successive notice and petition for post-conviction relief. His filings raised constitutional claims (including prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel), a claim that newly discovered evidence (police reports from the murder investigation) proved his innocence, and a claim that his failure to timely file the post-conviction proceeding was without fault on his part. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.1(a) (constitutional claims), (e) (newly discovered evidence), (f) (no fault for untimely filing of of-right notice of post-conviction relief or notice of appeal), (h) (actual innocence). The superior court summarily dismissed the petition, reasoning that (1) the Rule 32.1(a) claims could not be raised in the untimely and successive proceeding, see Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.4(a); (2) the police reports did not constitute grounds for relief under Rule 32.1(e) because they existed and were discoverable before trial, see State v. Dogan, 150 Ariz. 595, 600 (App. 1986), and the basis for claiming innocence was the same basis Williams asserted before trial; and (3) the Rule 32.1(f) claim failed because the proceeding was not of-right, see Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.1(f) (no fault for failure to timely file "a notice of post-conviction relief of-right or notice of appeal") (emphasis added). This petition for review followed.
¶4 Williams's petition for review asserts grounds for relief based on "1. partial jury; 2. breach of the settlement of the charge; 3. no equal consideration; 4. no full disclosure; 5. fraud and omissions; 6. estoppel; and 7. violations of 'Fundamental' rights guaranteed by the State and Federal Constitutions to Liberty, due process and equal protection of the law." Most of these claims were not raised in Williams's petition for post-conviction relief, and a petition for review may not raise new issues not first presented to the superior court. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii); State v. Bortz, 169 Ariz. 575, 577-78 (App. 1991); see also State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz.
390, 403, ¶ 42 (App. 2007) (noting that there is no review for fundamental error in a post-conviction relief proceeding).
¶5 The remaining claims do not establish a basis for relief. To the extent Williams challenges the superior court's dismissal of constitutional claims under Rule 32.1(a), such claims may not be raised in an untimely or successive Rule 32 proceeding. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.4(a) ("Any notice not timely filed may only raise claims pursuant to Rule 32.1(d), (e), (f), (g) or (h)."); see also Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b) ("Rule 32.2(a) [preclusion] shall not apply to claims for relief based on Rules 32.1(d), (e), (f), (g) and (h)."). And the assertion of "breach of the settlement of the charge"—presumably a reference to the governor's denial of the clemency board's commutation recommendation—was raised and finally resolved in Williams's 1999 post-conviction proceeding, and thus is now precluded. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a)(2).
¶6 Accordingly, we grant review but deny relief.