Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2015-0125-PR
05-13-2015
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. DOUGLAS WILLIAM MAHALA, Petitioner.
COUNSEL Sheila Sullivan Polk, Yavapai County Attorney By Stephen J. Sisneros, Deputy County Attorney, Prescott Counsel for Respondent Douglas W. Mahala, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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. 31.24.
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Yavapai County
No. P1300CR201001226
The Honorable Tina R. Ainley, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL
Sheila Sullivan Polk, Yavapai County Attorney
By Stephen J. Sisneros, Deputy County Attorney, Prescott
Counsel for Respondent
Douglas W. Mahala, Florence
In Propria Persona
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Miller authored the decision of the Court, in which Chief Judge Eckerstrom and Judge Espinosa concurred.
MILLER, Presiding Judge:
¶1 Douglas Mahala seeks review of the trial court's orders summarily denying his petition for post-conviction relief and motion for rehearing filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. We will not disturb that ruling unless the court clearly abused its discretion. State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390, ¶ 4, 166 P.3d 945, 948 (App. 2007). Mahala has not met his burden of demonstrating such abuse here.
¶2 After a jury trial, Mahala was convicted of two counts each of aggravated domestic violence and aggravated harassment. He was sentenced to concurrent prison terms, the longest of which were six years. Those sentences were ordered to run consecutive to one-year prison terms imposed as a result of Mahala's probation having been revoked due to his offenses. We affirmed his convictions and sentences on appeal. State v. Mahala, No. 1 CA-CR 11-0400 (memorandum decision filed June 12, 2012).
¶3 Mahala sought post-conviction relief, and appointed counsel filed a petition raising various claims of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, in addition to claims that his convictions violated the prohibition against double jeopardy and that consecutive sentences were improper. After the trial court summarily denied that petition, Mahala filed a pro se motion for rehearing in which he argued: (1) trial counsel had been ineffective in failing to enforce a stipulation that his probation status would not apply to his sentences; (2) trial and appellate counsel were
ineffective in failing to "bring[] up the fact that [a] state's witness committed perjury" and in failing to present "dispatcher log books" that would support his alibi defense; (3) the trial court erred by denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal; (4) Rule 32 counsel had been ineffective in failing to raise the above claims; and (5) a police officer had lied to the grand jury, resulting in an improper indictment. The trial court denied the motion for rehearing without comment, and this petition for review followed.
¶4 On review, Mahala repeats the claims raised in his motion for rehearing and further argues the trial court erred in failing to "mandate[]" that the jury view a video recording purportedly supporting his alibi defense. Mahala apparently has abandoned the claims raised in his petition for post-conviction relief. We do not address claims raised for the first time on review. State v. Ramirez, 126 Ariz. 464, 468, 616 P.2d 924, 928 (App. 1980); see also Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii). And the trial court was not required to address the claims Mahala raised for the first time in a motion for rehearing. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(a); State v. Bonnell, 171 Ariz. 435, 438 n.3, 831 P.2d 434, 437 n.3 (App. 1992). Thus, the court did not err in summarily denying that motion.
¶5 Although we grant review, we deny relief.