Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2014-0258-PR
10-27-2014
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. TYRONE EUGENE WILSON, Petitioner.
Tyrone E. Wilson, Eloy 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24.
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Pima County
No. CR20103436002
The Honorable Kenneth Lee, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
Tyrone E. Wilson, Eloy
In Propria Persona
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Howard authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Kelly and Judge Vásquez concurred. HOWARD, Judge:
¶1 Tyrone Wilson petitions this court for review of the trial court's order summarily dismissing his of-right petition for postconviction relief, filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. We will not disturb that ruling unless the court clearly has abused its discretion. See State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390, ¶ 4, 166 P.3d 945, 948 (App. 2007). Wilson has not met his burden of demonstrating such abuse here.
¶2 In 2012, Wilson pled guilty to weapons misconduct, specifically possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited possessor, and was sentenced to a ten-year prison term. He sought post-conviction relief, and appointed counsel filed a notice stating she had reviewed the record but found no colorable claim to raise in post-conviction proceedings.
Wilson's guilty plea followed two jury trials, both ending in mistrials, on charges of first-degree murder, first-degree burglary, and conspiracy to commit first-degree murder.
¶3 Wilson then filed a pro se petition arguing his trial counsel had been ineffective for failing to adequately communicate with him and in failing to provide him materials purportedly relevant to his decision whether to accept the state's plea offer. He also suggested that the state had improperly induced his plea by threatening to indict him on further charges of weapons misconduct and that the trial court had erred in denying his motion to substitute counsel. Wilson further argued the factual basis for his plea was improper because of a discrepancy between the date of the offense and the date stamp on photographs of him holding two firearms. Finally, he contended the court had abused its discretion in denying his requests for a copy of the record from his first and second trials. The trial court summarily denied relief, and this petition for review followed.
¶4 On review, Wilson restates his claims. He does not, however, identify any error in the trial court's evaluation of those claims. We have reviewed the record and the court's ruling, and we conclude the court clearly identified Wilson's claims and resolved them correctly based on thorough, well-reasoned analysis, which we need not repeat. See State v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 274, 866 P.2d 1358, 1360 (App. 1993).
¶5 We write further only to address Wilson's argument on review that the trial court erred by refusing his request for additional records, specifically the transcript from a proceeding in which the court conducted a hearing pursuant to State v. Donald, 198 Ariz. 406, 10 P.3d 1193 (App. 2000), after Wilson initially rejected the state's plea offer, and the transcript from his pro se motion to withdraw from the plea. Wilson's requests below appeared limited to the proceedings in his first two trials, and he has not explained how those materials are relevant to his claims, particularly in light of his decision to plead guilty. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.4(d) (defendant entitled to only those transcripts trial court "deems necessary to resolve the issues to be raised in the petition"); State v. Quick, 177 Ariz. 314, 316, 868 P.2d 327, 329 (App. 1993) (guilty plea waives all non-jurisdictional defects unrelated to validity of plea). We do not address arguments raised for the first time on review. See State v. Ramirez, 126 Ariz. 464, 468, 616 P.2d 924, 928 (App. 1980); see also Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii) (petition for review should contain "issues which were decided by the trial court and which the defendant wishes to present to the appellate court for review"). In any event, to the extent Wilson's request for record materials in the trial court can reasonably be read to include the transcripts he mentions in his petition for review, he has not explained how those transcripts are material to the claims he raises.
¶6 For the reasons stated, although we grant review, we deny relief.