Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2018-0333-PR
03-19-2019
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. JESUS ISABEL NARANJO, Petitioner.
Jesus Isabel Naranjo, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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. 31.19(e). Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Pima County
No. CR20141203001
The Honorable Teresa Godoy, Judge Pro Tempore
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
Jesus Isabel Naranjo, Florence
In Propria Persona
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Chief Judge Eckerstrom authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Eppich and Judge Espinosa concurred. ECKERSTROM, Chief Judge:
¶1 Petitioner Jesus Naranjo 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 (App. 2007). Naranjo has not sustained his burden of establishing such abuse here.
¶2 After a jury trial, Naranjo was convicted of sexual assault, and the trial court sentenced him to a partially mitigated, six-year prison term. This court affirmed the convictions and sentences on appeal. State v. Naranjo, 2 CA-CR 2015-0346 (Ariz. App. Jan. 27, 2017) (mem. decision).
¶3 Naranjo thereafter sought post-conviction relief, arguing in his petition: that evidence should have been excluded due to an unlawful search, leaving insufficient evidence to support the conviction; that the state had withheld evidence that the search had been unlawful; that he was denied the right to call a witness in his defense; and that he had received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The trial court summarily denied relief.
Naranjo filed a notice of post-conviction relief after his sentencing, and the proceeding was stayed during the pendency of the appeal. Although it does not appear in the record before us, the trial court noted that Rule 32 counsel filed a notice in April 2017, stating that she had "reviewed the record and found no colorable claims." Naranjo apparently failed to timely file a pro se, supplemental petition, but the court ultimately reinstated the proceeding, and Naranjo filed the petition on which the court ultimately ruled. --------
¶4 On review, Naranjo asserts the trial court abused its discretion in denying relief on his claims, raising evidentiary issues and arguing there was insufficient evidence of his guilt. We agree with the trial court's correct conclusion, however, that the majority of his claims, including those relating to the question of suppression, are precluded based on his failure to raise them on appeal. And Naranjo does not meaningfully address on review the court's ruling on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. We therefore do not address it. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(4)(D); State v. Rodriguez, 227 Ariz. 58, n.4 (App. 2010) (declining to address argument not raised in petition for review); see also State v. Bolton, 182 Ariz. 290, 298 (1995) ("Failure to argue a claim on appeal constitutes waiver of that claim.").
¶5 For these reasons, although we grant the petition for review, we deny relief.