Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 13-0781 PRPC
06-02-2015
STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. KEVIN DWAYNE POLSON, Petitioner.
COUNSEL Yavapai County Attorney's Office, Prescott By Steven John Sisneros Counsel for Respondent Kevin Dwayne Polson, 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Yavapai County
No. P1300CR201100641 and P1300CR201100642
The Honorable Tina R. Ainley, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL
Yavapai County Attorney's Office, Prescott
By Steven John Sisneros
Counsel for Respondent
Kevin Dwayne Polson, Florence
Petitioner
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Kent E. Cattani, Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop, and Judge Peter B. Swann delivered the decision of the Court.
PER CURIAM:
¶1 Petitioner Kevin Dwayne Polson petitions this court for review from the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. For reasons that follow, we grant review but deny relief.
¶2 Polson pled guilty to two counts of aggravated driving under the influence. The superior court sentenced him to 3.5 years' imprisonment for one of the counts and placed him on ten years' probation for the other. Polson filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief of-right after his counsel found no colorable claims for relief. The superior court summarily dismissed the petition, and Polson now seeks review.
¶3 Polson is not entitled to relief. Although he identifies a number of claims for review, his claims are not supported with fully and independently developed arguments, citation to legal authority, or complete citations to the record. Mentioning an issue is not enough. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c); see also Canion v. Cole, 210 Ariz. 598, 600, ¶ 11, 115 P.3d 1261, 1263 (2005) (noting that "compliance with Rule 32 is not a mere formality," and that a petitioner must "strictly comply" with Rule 32 in order to be entitled to relief). And, to the extent Polson seeks to present issues by merely incorporating by reference his petition for post-conviction relief, his claims fail. See State v. Bortz, 169 Ariz. 575, 577, 821 P.2d 236, 238 (App. 1991).
¶4 Finally, Polson's petition for review also presents additional issues that were not raised in the petition for post-conviction relief filed below. We will not consider issues that have not first been presented to the superior court. See State v. Ramirez, 126 Ariz. 464, 467, 616 P.2d 924, 927 (App. 1980); see also Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii).
¶5 Based on the foregoing, we grant review and deny relief.