Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 13-0710 PRPC
03-26-2015
STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. GUADALUPE ROBLES-CASTRO, Petitioner.
COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Lisa Marie Martin Counsel for Respondent Guadalupe Robles-Castro, Florence Petitioner
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR 2009-163164-004 DT
The Honorable Paul J. McMurdie, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL
Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix
By Lisa Marie Martin
Counsel for Respondent
Guadalupe Robles-Castro, Florence
Petitioner
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Peter B. Swann delivered the decision of the court, in which Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop and Chief Judge Diane M. Johnsen joined.
SWANN, Judge:
¶1 Guadalupe Robles-Castro petitions this court for review from the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. We have considered the petition for review and, for the reasons stated, grant review and deny relief.
¶2 A jury convicted Robles-Castro of kidnapping, conspiracy to commit kidnapping, theft by extortion and two counts of aggravated assault. The trial court sentenced him to an aggregate term of twenty years' imprisonment, and we affirmed his convictions and sentences on direct appeal. State v. Robles-Castro, 1 CA-CR 11-0271, 2012 WL 3871766 (Ariz. App. Sept. 6, 2012) (mem. decision). Robles-Castro filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief after his counsel found no colorable claims for relief. The trial court summarily dismissed the petition and Robles-Castro now seeks review. We have jurisdiction under Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c).
¶3 Robles-Castro did not raise any of the issues he presents in his petition for review in the petition for post-conviction relief he filed below. A petition for review may not present issues not first presented to the trial court. See State v. Ramirez, 126 Ariz. 464, 467 (App. 1980); State v. Bortz, 169 Ariz. 575, 577 (App. 1991); see also Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii).
¶4 While Robles-Castro's petition for post-conviction relief presented issues based on Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), those were not the same Miranda issues he now presents for review. Below, Robles-Castro simply claimed he did not waive his Miranda rights after a law enforcement officer informed him of those rights. Robles-Castro also used the alleged absence of a waiver as the foundation for all of his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. He never claimed that the officer's explanation of his Miranda rights was legally insufficient. In his petition for review, Robles-Castro argues for the first time that the officer's explanation of his Miranda rights was legally insufficient and presents claims of ineffective assistance of counsel based on the alleged insufficiency. He does not, however, present the waiver claims he raised below.
¶5 For the reasons set forth above, we grant review and deny relief.