Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2014-0196-PR
09-11-2014
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. EARL BALL, Petitioner.
Earl Ball, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24.
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Cochise County
Nos. CR98000296 and CR99000345
The Honorable Karl D. Elledge, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
Earl Ball, Florence
In Propria Persona
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Howard authored the decision of the Court, in which Judge Vásquez and Judge Brammer concurred. HOWARD, Judge:
The Hon. J. William Brammer, Jr., a retired judge of this court, is called back to active duty to serve on this case pursuant to orders of this court and the supreme court.
¶1 In this petition for review, Earl Ball challenges the trial court's April 2014 order dismissing summarily his most recent successive petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P., and the court's June 2014 order denying his motion for rehearing. We will not disturb the court's ruling absent a clear abuse of its discretion. See State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390, ¶ 4, 166 P.3d 945, 948 (App. 2007). We see no such abuse here.
¶2 After jury trials in two causes, CR98000296 (one count of sexual exploitation of a minor) and CR98000345 (sixteen counts of sexual exploitation of a minor), Ball was convicted of twelve counts of sexual exploitation of a minor. In our August 2006 memorandum decision in Ball's appeal and consolidated petition for review of the denial of his first petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P., this court reviewed the factual and procedural history of this case up to that point. State v. Ball, Nos. 2 CA-CR 1999-0481, 2 CA-CR 2001-0279-PR, ¶¶ 2-4 (consolidated) (memorandum decision filed Aug. 31, 2006). In State v. Ball, No. 2 CA-CR 2012-0399 (memorandum decision filed Jan. 14, 2013), and State v. Ball, No. 2 CA-CR 2010-0409-PR (memorandum decision filed Mar. 24, 2010), we reviewed the history of Ball's various attempts to challenge his convictions and sentences. Ball commenced this proceeding by filing a document he called, "Rule 32 Of Right," which the trial court dismissed. The court denied Ball's motion for rehearing. This petition for review followed.
¶3 The trial court correctly found the claims Ball was raising in this successive proceeding either were raised or could have been raised on direct appeal or had been raised in prior post-conviction proceedings. Ball has not sustained his burden of establishing the court abused its discretion in denying relief summarily in this proceeding and denying Ball's motion for rehearing. See Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390, ¶ 4, 166 P.3d at 948. Therefore, we adopt the court's rulings, see State v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 274, 866 P.2d 1358, 1360 (App. 1993) and, although we grant the petition for review, we deny relief.