Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 20-0259 PRPC
11-24-2020
STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. RAFAEL ARREDONDO, Petitioner.
COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Daniel Strange Counsel for Respondent Rafael Arredondo, Buckeye 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. CR2016-118311-001
The Honorable Erin O'Brien Otis, Judge Retired
REVIEW DENIED
COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix
By Daniel Strange
Counsel for Respondent Rafael Arredondo, Buckeye
Petitioner
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge James B. Morse Jr., Judge Maria Elena Cruz and Judge Paul J. McMurdie delivered the decision of the Court. PER CURIAM:
¶1 Petitioner Rafael Arredondo petitions this court for review from the dismissal of his 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 Arredondo has not complied with Ariz. R. Crim. P. ("Rule") 33, 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); State v. Botello-Rangel, 248 Ariz. 429, 430, ¶ 1 n.1 (App. 2020). The amended rules 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. Because there were no substantive changes to the respective rules related to this decision, we apply and cite to the current rules.
¶2 Arredondo pled guilty by plea agreement to kidnapping, a class two felony, and aggravated assault, a class three dangerous felony. Both offenses are domestic violence offenses, arising from an incident in which Arredondo bound his girlfriend and set her on fire. The superior court sentenced Arredondo to fifteen years imprisonment, followed by seven years of supervised probation. Arredondo timely filed a notice of post-conviction relief and the superior court appointed counsel to represent him. After reviewing the record, counsel found no claims for relief to pursue in post-conviction proceedings. Arredondo then represented himself. Arredondo asserted newly discovered evidence, Miranda violations, and ineffective assistance of counsel. His ineffective assistance claims related to counsel's alleged failure to investigate the victim's mental health and prior allegations, and a friend's improper influence. He also claimed that counsel was ineffective in forcing Arredondo to sign the plea agreement. The superior court summarily dismissed the petition.
¶3 Arredondo timely sought review of the superior court's decision. In his petition for review, Arredondo claims he "fully explained the newly discovered material," and he does not know why his post-conviction relief proceeding was denied. Here, Arredondo fails to identify with sufficient specificity the issues the superior court addressed and has neither summarized the facts material to the consideration of those issues, nor specified the reasons we should grant his petition for review and grant him relief, as required by Rule 33.16(c). Arredondo attempts to incorporate by reference his petition for post-conviction relief filed in superior court, but this is not permitted. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 33.16(c)(2) (describing what a petition "must contain"); State v. Bolton, 182 Ariz. 290, 298 (1995) (providing that insufficient argument waives claim on review); State v. Carriger, 143 Ariz. 142, 146 (1984) ("Petitioners must strictly comply with [post-conviction rules] or be denied relief."); State v. French, 198 Ariz. 119, 122, ¶ 9 (App. 2000) (summarily rejecting petition for review incorporating trial court filings because it "utterly fails to comply with [former rule]"), disapproved on other grounds by Stewart v. Smith, 202 Ariz. 446, 450, ¶ 10 (2002). Additionally, Arredondo raises new arguments about his competency in his petition for review that were not first addressed by the superior court. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 33.16(c)(2)(B) (providing that petition for review must contain issues decided by trial court that defendant is presenting for review); State v. Ramirez, 126 Ariz. 464, 468 (App. 1980) (noting the court of appeals does not address issues raised for first time in petition for review). Arredondo'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).
¶4 Accordingly, review of the trial court's order is denied.