Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2016-0350-PR
01-10-2017
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. DONNIE RAY MATTHEWS, Petitioner.
Donnie Ray Matthews, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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. 31.24.
Petition for Review from the superior Court in Pima County
No. CR20122919001
The Honorable Kenneth Lee, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
Donnie Ray Matthews, Florence
In Propria Persona
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Espinosa authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Staring and Judge Miller concurred.
ESPINOSA, Judge:
¶1 Donnie Matthews seeks review of the trial court's order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus, which the court construed as a petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.3. We will not disturb that order unless the court clearly abused its discretion. State v. Roseberry, 237 Ariz. 507, ¶ 7, 353 P.3d 847, 848 (2015). Matthews has not met his burden of demonstrating such abuse here.
¶2 After a jury trial, Matthews was convicted of two counts of third-degree burglary and sentenced to concurrent, eight-year prison terms for each offense. We affirmed his convictions and sentences on appeal. State v. Matthews, No. 2 CA-CR 2013-0398 (Ariz. App. Oct. 21, 2014) (mem. decision). Matthews sought post-conviction relief, and the trial court appointed counsel. Matthews chose, however, to represent himself, and filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus raising several claims, including that his due process rights had been violated because he had been charged by indictment and "a[] Probable Cause determination [was never] made by [a] magistrate." The trial court, treating his filing as a petition for post-conviction relief, summarily denied relief. Matthews did not seek review of that decision pursuant to Rule 32.9(c). He then filed another petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing inter alia that purported defects in the charging process had deprived the trial court of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court summarily denied that petition too and, again, Matthews did not seek review. Instead, he filed yet another habeas petition raising largely the same argument, which the court summarily denied, finding the claims precluded pursuant to Rule 32.2(a). Matthews then filed this petition for review.
¶3 Matthews first asserts, as we understand his argument, that the trial court was not permitted to summarily reject his claims but instead was required to "make a full factual determination of all [his] claims before deciding them on their merits." Rule 32.6(c) permits a court to summarily dispose of claims either because they are procedurally precluded or because no claim "presents a material issue of fact or law which would entitle the defendant to relief under this rule and that no purpose would be served by any further proceedings." Matthews's most recent petition warranted summary dismissal. In an untimely proceeding like this one, Matthews was permitted to raise only those claims arising under Rule 32.1(d) through (h). Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.4(a). He identified no such claim in his petition. And, although he argues the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and, thus, his claims "can be raised at any time," a jurisdictional defect is not one that can be raised in an untimely proceeding. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.1(b), 32.4(a). Accordingly, the court was required to summarily dismiss Matthews's petition. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.4(a), 32.6(c).
¶4 Although we grant review, relief is denied.