Opinion
2 CA-CR 2012-0372-PR
10-18-2012
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. TIMOTHY ROOSEVELT BOLES, Petitioner.
Timothy Roosevelt Boles Florence In Propria Persona
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Not for Publication
Rule 111, Rules of
the Supreme Court
PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MARICOPA COUNTY
Cause No. CR1992004720
Honorable Kristin C. Hoffman, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
Timothy Roosevelt Boles
Florence
In Propria Persona
HOWARD, Chief Judge. ¶1 Petitioner Timothy Roosevelt Boles seeks review of the trial court's summary dismissal of his successive petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. We grant review, but deny relief. ¶2 After a 1993 jury trial, Boles was convicted of "eighteen felonies arising out of various sexual offenses," State v. Boles, 188 Ariz. 129, 130, 933 P.2d 1197, 1198 (1997), and sentenced to aggravated, consecutive prison terms totaling 333 years. His convictions were affirmed on appeal. Id. at 132, 933 P.2d at 1200. ¶3 In October 2011, Boles filed a pro se "Writ of Habeas Corpus," stating he was "aware that this [filing] will be treated as a Rule 32, Post-Conviction Relief [Petition]." He maintained his claim of sentencing error is "not precluded" because it "was never raised on direct appeal, post-trial motions, previous petitions[, or any] collateral proceeding." The trial court summarily denied relief, noting that Boles had been sentenced according to the statute in effect at the time he was sentenced, see 1987 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 121, § 1, and was not entitled to relief based on subsequent statutory changes requiring that most aggravating factors be found by the trier of fact, rather than by the sentencing judge. A.R.S. § 13-702(C); 2005 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 20, § 1; see also A.R.S. § 1-246 ("[An] offender shall be punished under the law in force when the offense was committed."); State v. Jensen, 193 Ariz. 105, ¶ 16, 970 P.2d 937, 939-40 (App. 1998) (absent "express language demonstrating clear legislative intent" of retroactivity, sentenced defendant cannot benefit from subsequent revision of sentencing statute). The court also observed that Boles is precluded from his constitutional claim of sentencing error, tacitly based on Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), because he has already raised that claim and it has been denied on its merits. ¶4 On review, Boles asks that we review and reverse the trial court's decision based on the merits of his claim. We review a summary dismissal of a petition for post-conviction relief, based on the lack of a colorable claim, for an abuse of discretion. See State v. Bennett, 213 Ariz. 562, ¶ 17, 146 P.3d 63, 67 (2006). Boles has failed to establish the court abused its discretion here. Rather, we conclude the trial court thoroughly addressed Boles's claim and correctly resolved it "in a fashion that will allow any court in the future to understand the resolution." State v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 274, 866 P.2d 1358, 1360 (App. 1993). We need not repeat the court's correct analysis here. See id. ¶5 Accordingly, we grant review but deny relief. ______________
JOSEPH W. HOWARD, Chief Judge
CONCURRING: ______________
PETER J. ECKERSTROM, Presiding Judge
______________
GARYE L. VÁSQUEZ, Judge