Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2017-0223-PR
08-30-2017
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. ROY ALAN PRUITT, Petitioner.
COUNSEL William G. Montgomery, Maricopa County Attorney By David R. Cole, Deputy County Attorney, Phoenix Counsel for Respondent Roy Pruitt, Buckeye 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 Maricopa County
No. CR2011006379002DT
The Honorable Warren J. Granville, Judge
REVIEW DENIED
COUNSEL William G. Montgomery, Maricopa County Attorney
By David R. Cole, Deputy County Attorney, Phoenix
Counsel for Respondent Roy Pruitt, Buckeye
In Propria Persona
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Vásquez authored the decision of the Court, in which Judge Eppich and Judge Howard concurred. VÁSQUEZ, Presiding Judge:
The Hon. Joseph W. Howard, a retired judge of this court, is called back to active duty to serve on this case pursuant to orders of this court and our supreme court. --------
¶1 Roy Pruitt seeks review of the trial court's ruling denying his petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32.1, Ariz. R. Crim. P. For the reasons that follow, we deny review.
¶2 After a jury trial, Pruitt was convicted of felony murder and sale or transportation of methamphetamine. The trial court sentenced him to a prison term of natural life for murder, with a concurrent ten-year term for the methamphetamine conviction. We affirmed his convictions and sentences on appeal. State v. Pruitt, No. 1 CA-CR 12-0625 (Ariz. App. Oct. 8, 2013) (mem. decision).
¶3 Pruitt sought post-conviction relief, arguing his trial counsel had been ineffective because he advised Pruitt not to testify at trial and did not contact a purported alibi witness. The trial court summarily dismissed the petition, concluding counsel's advice was strategic and the alibi witness's proffered testimony would not have altered the verdict. This petition for review followed.
¶4 Pruitt's petition for review includes little more than a brief summary of the argument he raised below, and is devoid of citation to the record or meaningful legal argument. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1). Pruitt's failure to comply with Rule 32.9 and to present any legal argument supporting his claim justifies our summary refusal to grant review. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1) (petition for review must contain "reasons why the petition should be granted" and "specific references to the record"), (f) (appellate review under Rule 32.9 discretionary); see also State v. Stefanovich, 232 Ariz. 154, ¶ 16, 302 P.3d 679, 683 (App. 2013) (insufficient argument waives claim on review); State v. French, 198 Ariz. 119, ¶ 9, 7 P.3d 128, 131 (App. 2000) (summarily rejecting claims not complying with rules governing form and content of petitions for review), disapproved on other grounds by Stewart v. Smith, 202 Ariz. 446, ¶ 10, 46 P.3d 1067, 1071 (2002).
¶5 We deny review.