State v. Ramirez

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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. JOSE JESUS RAMIREZ, Petitioner. No. 1 CA-CR 14-0753 PRPC FILED 12-6-2016 Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Coconino County No. S0300CR201100106 The Honorable Dan R. Slayton, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED COUNSEL Coconino County Attorney’s Office, Flagstaff By Bryan F. Shea Counsel for Respondent Jose Jesus Ramirez, Phoenix Petitioner MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen, Judge Jon W. Thompson and Judge Paul J. McMurdie delivered the decision of the court. STATE v. RAMIREZ Decision of the Court PER CURIAM: ¶1 Jose Jesus Ramirez petitions for review of the summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. We have considered the petition for review and, for the reasons stated, grant review but deny relief. ¶2 Following a jury trial, Ramirez was convicted of three counts of aggravated driving under the influence and sentenced to concurrent ten- year prison terms. This court affirmed the convictions and sentences on appeal. State v. Ramirez, 1 CA-CR 11-0840, 2012 WL 2793111 (Ariz. App. July 10, 2012) (mem. decision). ¶3 Ramirez commenced a timely proceeding for post-conviction relief. After appointed counsel filed a notice that he was unable to identify a colorable claim, Ramirez filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief alleging a variety of claims. The superior court summarily dismissed the petition, finding a majority of the claims Ramirez raised were procedurally precluded and the remainder each failed to state a colorable claim for relief. This petition for review followed. ¶4 We review the summary dismissal of a petition for post- conviction relief for abuse of discretion. State v. Bennett, 213 Ariz. 562, 566, ¶ 17 (2006). Ramirez has failed to show in his petition for review that the superior court abused its discretion in finding the majority of his claims for relief were precluded and the remainder failed to state a colorable claim. Thus, the court did not err in summarily dismissing the petition. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.6(c). ¶5 Accordingly, although we grant review, we deny relief. AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court FILED: AA 2