Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2014-0003-PR
05-21-2014
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. RONALD LESLIE MURRAY, Petitioner.
Ronald Leslie Murray, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
No. CR89000193
The Honorable John F. Kelliher Jr., Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL
Ronald Leslie Murray, Florence
In Propria Persona
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Kelly authored the decision of the Court, in which Judge Espinosa and Judge Eckerstrom concurred.
KELLY, Presiding Judge:
¶1 Petitioner Ronald Murray seeks review of the trial court's order denying his "Complaint for Special Action and Declaratory Relief, which the court deemed a petition for postconviction relief 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). Murray has not sustained his burden of establishing such abuse here.
¶2 After a jury trial Murray was convicted of kidnapping, sexual assault, robbery, and two counts of theft by control. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent and consecutive prison terms totaling forty-two years. Murray's convictions and sentences were affirmed on appeal, State v. Murray, No. 2 CA-CR 89-0564 (memorandum decision filed Aug. 2, 1990), and he subsequently sought post-conviction relief in at least a dozen proceedings.
¶3 Beginning in March 2013, Murray filed numerous documents attempting to challenge the Arizona Department of Corrections' (ADOC) calculation of his "earned release credits." He also filed a petition for special action in this court in August 2013, challenging the trial court's denial of one of his motions on the claim. We granted review, but remanded the matter to the trial court to "rule on the Complaint under Rule 32," having concluded Murray's complaint "was in the nature of a successive petition for post-conviction relief." On remand, the trial court concluded Murray's claim was precluded and summarily denied relief.
¶4 On review, to the extent we understand Murray's argument, he repeats his claim that ADOC has wrongly calculated his "earned release credit" and violated his due process rights. He does not, however, address the trial court's correct conclusion that his claim is precluded. Indeed, in this successive, untimely proceeding, Murray could only raise a claim pursuant to Rule 32.1(d), (e), (f), (g), or (h). See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b), 32.4(a). Although a claim of this nature arguably could be asserted in some circumstances under Rule 32.1(d), in this case Murray asserts his correct release date is July 19, 2020. Thus, he does not claim to currently "be[] held in custody after the sentence imposed has expired." Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.1(d).
¶5 Therefore, although we grant the petition for review, we deny relief.