Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2019-0076-PR
07-08-2019
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. FLOYD LEWIS FOSTER JR., Petitioner.
Floyd Lewis Foster Jr., San Luis 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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. CR20134960001
The Honorable Danelle Liwski, Judge
REVIEW DENIED
Floyd Lewis Foster Jr., San Luis
In Propria Persona
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Brearcliffe authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Staring and Chief Judge Vásquez concurred. BREARCLIFFE, Judge:
¶1 Petitioner Floyd Foster Jr. 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). Because Foster has not meaningfully complied with Rule 32.9, we deny review.
¶2 Following a jury trial, Foster was convicted of possession of a dangerous drug for sale, possession of a narcotic drug for sale, possession of drug paraphernalia, possession of burglary tools, and possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited possessor. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent prison terms totaling 15.75 years. We affirmed Foster's convictions and sentences on appeal. State v. Foster, No. 2 CA-CR 2018-0041 (Ariz. App. June 10, 2019) (mem. decision). While his appeal was pending, Foster filed the underlying pro se supplemental petition for post-conviction relief raising claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. This petition for review followed the court's summary denial of that petition.
After the trial court determined Foster's notice of appeal had been filed untimely through no fault of his own, he was permitted to file a delayed notice of appeal. --------
¶3 Although Foster has filed what purports to be a petition for review of the trial court's February 2019 ruling denying his Rule 32 petition, he has failed to present any meaningful argument as to why the court's ruling was an abuse of discretion. His petition is nothing more than a summary of the issues he raised below and of the court's ruling. In the portion of the form petition for review entitled "Facts material to the issue presented," Foster directs us to the "underlying pleadings" in the "court below," noting "[t]here is not sufficient room to extrapolate on [the] form, and the argument has already been succinctly presented." Similarly, in the portion of the form entitled "Reasons why this court should grant the petition," Foster states, "Because the judicial concept of stare decisis will be abrogated if it is not."
¶4 Rule 32.9(c)(4)(B)(iii), (iv) requires a petition for review to contain "a statement of material facts concerning the issues presented for review, including specific references to the record for each material fact," and "reasons why the appellate court should grant the petition." Foster's failure to comply with Rule 32.9 justifies our refusal to grant review. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(f) (describing appellate review under Rule 32.9 as discretionary); State v. French, 198 Ariz. 119, ¶ 9 (App. 2000) (summarily rejecting claims incorporated by reference as non-compliant with Rule 32.9), disapproved on other grounds by Stewart v. Smith, 202 Ariz. 446, ¶ 10 (2002). Further, a defendant waives claims unsupported by sufficient argument. State v. Stefanovich, 232 Ariz. 154, ¶ 16 (App. 2013).
¶5 Accordingly, we deny review of the trial court's order.