From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Woods

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO
Jun 3, 2020
No. 2 CA-CR 2020-0011-PR (Ariz. Ct. App. Jun. 3, 2020)

Opinion

No. 2 CA-CR 2020-0011-PR

06-03-2020

THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. DONALD EARL WOODS, Petitioner.

Donald Earl Woods, Florence 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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. CR20134590001
The Honorable Christopher Browning, Judge

REVIEW DENIED

Donald Earl Woods, Florence
In Propria Persona

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Espinosa authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Eppich and Judge Eckerstrom concurred. ESPINOSA, Judge:

¶1 Donald Woods seeks review of the trial court's ruling summarily dismissing his notice and petition for post-conviction relief. We will not disturb that order unless the court abused its discretion. See State v. Roseberry, 237 Ariz. 507, ¶ 7 (2015). Because Woods has not complied with Rule 33, Ariz. R. Crim. P., we deny review.

Effective January 1, 2020, our supreme court amended the post-conviction relief rules. 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." Id. Although Woods filed his petition pursuant to former Rule 32 and before the effective date of the new rules, it is neither infeasible nor works an injustice to apply the new rules as the result would have been the same under former Rule 32. We therefore cite to and apply the current version of the rules.

¶2 Pursuant to a plea agreement, Woods was convicted of manslaughter in September 2014. The trial court sentenced him to a slightly aggravated prison term of 16.5 years in October 2014. In October 2015, almost one year after he had been sentenced, Woods filed a pro se notice of post-conviction relief, checking the box on the form notice indicating he was raising a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The court dismissed his notice as untimely. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 33.4(b)(3)(A).

¶3 In November 2019, Woods filed a successive pro se notice of and petition for post-conviction relief. Although Woods checked the box on the form notice indicating that his late filing was without fault on his part, see Ariz. R. Crim. P. 33.1(f), he made no further reference to his late filing or the reasons therefor in his notice or petition. Woods also asserted his plea agreement had been breached, there were multiple due process violations, and trial counsel had been ineffective.

¶4 In its December 2019 ruling summarily dismissing Woods's notice and petition, the trial court rejected his claim that his untimely filing was without fault on his part. The court noted that Woods had not "address[ed] how his failure to timely file a notice and/or petition was not his fault," and further noted that he had been advised orally and in writing of the time period in which to initiate a post-conviction proceeding. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 33.2(b) (defendant raising untimely claim pursuant to Rule 33.1(f) must sufficiently explain why claim not raised in previous notice or petition or in timely manner).

¶5 Although Woods has filed what purports to be a petition for review of the trial court's ruling, it is essentially a verbatim copy of his notice of and petition for post-conviction relief, albeit with a statement of the decision rendered by the court and with some changes made to the title and signature pages. Notably, Woods does not state why he believes the court abused its discretion in summarily dismissing his notice and petition, as required by the relevant rule, nor does he mention Rule 33.1(f), much less address the court's denial of relief under that rule. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 33.16(c)(2)(D) (petition for review must contain "reasons why the appellate court should grant the petition").

Although Woods entitled a section of his petition for review as "Reasons Why this Court Should Grant the Petition," in it he states, without any explanation or argument, "[c]orrection of the breached plea agreement (contract); hearing on the matter." --------

¶6 Woods's failure to comply with Rule 33.16 justifies our refusal to grant review. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 33.16(k) (describing appellate review under Rule 32.9 as discretionary); State v. French, 198 Ariz. 119, ¶ 9 (App. 2000) (summarily rejecting claims not complying with rules governing form and content of petitions for review), disapproved on other grounds by Stewart v. Smith, 202 Ariz. 446, ¶ 10 (2002); cf. State v. Bolton, 182 Ariz. 290, 298 (1995) (insufficient argument waives claim on appellate review).

¶7 Accordingly, review of the trial court's order is denied.


Summaries of

State v. Woods

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO
Jun 3, 2020
No. 2 CA-CR 2020-0011-PR (Ariz. Ct. App. Jun. 3, 2020)
Case details for

State v. Woods

Case Details

Full title:THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. DONALD EARL WOODS, Petitioner.

Court:ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO

Date published: Jun 3, 2020

Citations

No. 2 CA-CR 2020-0011-PR (Ariz. Ct. App. Jun. 3, 2020)