Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2017-0187-PR
10-13-2017
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. JAMES DANIEL FLORES, Petitioner.
James Daniel Flores, Douglas 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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. 31.24.
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Cochise County
Nos. CR201100618 and CR201100683
The Honorable Wallace R. Hoggatt, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
James Daniel Flores, Douglas
In Propria Persona
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Vásquez authored the decision of the Court, in which Chief Judge Eckerstrom and Judge Eppich concurred.
VÁSQUEZ, Presiding Judge:
¶1 Petitioner James Flores seeks review of the trial court's order denying his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. "We will not disturb a trial court's ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief absent a clear abuse of discretion." State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390, ¶ 4, 166 P.3d 945, 948 (App. 2007). Flores has not sustained his burden of establishing such abuse here.
¶2 After a jury trial in CR201100618, Flores was convicted of possession of methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia. The trial court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed him on concurrent terms of probation, the longer of which was four years. This court affirmed the convictions on appeal. State v. Flores, No. 2 CA-CR 2012-0401, ¶ 1 (Ariz. App. July 23, 2013) (mem. decision). During the pendency of the appeal, Flores's probation was revoked, and the court ordered him to serve concurrent prison terms, the longer of which was 2.5 years.
¶3 Thereafter, Flores was charged with and convicted of possession of a dangerous drug for sale and possession of drug paraphernalia in CR201100683. The trial court imposed concurrent prison terms, the longest of which was ten years. This court affirmed the convictions and sentences on appeal. State v. Flores, No. 2 CA-CR 2013-0006, ¶ 2 (Ariz. App. Sept. 27, 2013) (mem. decision). Flores sought and was denied post-conviction relief in CR201100683, and this court denied relief on his subsequent petition for review. State v. Flores, No. 2 CA-CR 2015-0363-PR, ¶ 7 (Ariz. App. Mar. 3, 2016) (mem. decision).
¶4 In November 2016, Flores initiated a proceeding for post-conviction relief in CR201100618, arguing in his petition that the state
had violated the rule set forth in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), by failing to disclose evidence of misconduct relating to one of the investigating officers, Michael Mitchell. He asserted his convictions and sentences should be vacated, the time served on those convictions should be "applied to CR 2011[]00683," and he should be resentenced in that cause without CR201100618 as "a prior for enhancement."
¶5 The trial court granted relief in part, vacating the convictions and sentences in CR201100618 and ordering the charges dismissed with prejudice. As to CR201100683, however, the court determined that Mitchell had not been involved in the conviction. And it concluded that CR201100618 "had no effect whatsoever on defendant's convictions and sentences in" CR201100683. The court pointed out that Flores had been sentenced as a non-repetitive offender and the sentences had not been aggravated based on the convictions in CR201100618. It therefore denied relief, and denied Flores's subsequent motion for reconsideration as well.
¶6 On review, Flores again alleges prosecutorial misconduct, mentioning his claims relating to Mitchell and focusing primarily on the testimony of a witness he claims the prosecutor "intimidat[ed] . . . from testifying to exonerating facts" through its plea agreement with her. This argument, however, was not raised until Flores's motion for reconsideration below. See State v. Bortz, 169 Ariz. 575, 577, 821 P.2d 236, 238 (App. 1991) ("[A] court will not entertain new matters raised for the first time in a motion for rehearing."). And, any such claim is precluded as Flores raised a closely related claim on appeal. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a). Furthermore, Flores does not explain how the trial court erred in determining Mitchell had not been involved in CR201100683, and we therefore do not address that claim further.
¶7 For these reasons, although we grant the petition for review, we deny relief.