Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 16-0207 PRPC
08-24-2017
STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. LEVI S. OMAN, Petitioner.
COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Diane Meloche Counsel for Respondent Levi S. Oman, Eloy 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2010-159586-001 CR2011-030014-001
The Honorable Justin Beresky, Judge Pro Tempore
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix
By Diane Meloche
Counsel for Respondent Levi S. Oman, Eloy
Petitioner
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Chief Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Margaret H. Downie and Judge Kenton D. Jones presided. THUMMA, Chief Judge:
¶1 Petitioner Levi S. Oman seeks review of the superior court's order denying his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1 (2017). Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will not disturb a superior court's ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief. State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577 ¶ 19 (2012). Because Oman has shown no such error, this court grants review but denies relief.
Absent material revisions after the relevant dates, statutes and rules cited refer to the current version unless otherwise indicated.
¶2 In March 2015, the superior court revoked Oman's probation grants in the underlying criminal cases and sentenced him to prison to be followed by probation. In November 2015 and March 2016, Oman filed notices of post-conviction relief. In his corresponding petition, also filed in March 2016, Oman argued that he is supposed to be released in 2019, not 2022. Finding Oman's requests for relief were untimely and his reasons for the five-month delay in seeking Rule 32 relief lacked merit, the superior court summarily dismissed the notices and petition. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.4(a) (requiring Rule 32 of-right proceedings to commence within 90 days of entry of judgment and sentencing). This timely petition for review followed.
¶3 The superior court correctly dismissed the proceeding as being untimely, and it did so in a thorough, well-reasoned manner that will allow any future court to understand the court's rulings. Under these circumstances, "[n]o useful purpose would be served by this court rehashing the trial court's correct ruling in a written decision." State v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 274 (App. 1993).
In his petition for review, Oman mentions claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Because he did not raise these claims in the proceedings before the superior court, this court does not address them. State v. Ramirez, 126 Ariz. 464, 468 (App. 1980) (reviewing court will not consider issues not first presented to superior court). --------
¶4 The superior court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Oman's requests for Rule 32 relief. Accordingly, this court grants review but denies relief.