State
v.
Carpenter

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWOSep 6, 2018
No. 2 CA-CR 2018-0197-PR (Ariz. Ct. App. Sep. 6, 2018)

No. 2 CA-CR 2018-0197-PR

09-06-2018

THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. EDWARD LAMAR CARPENTER, Petitioner.

Edward Lamar Carpenter, Buckeye 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 Maricopa County
No. CR2009007454001DT
The Honorable Janet E. Barton, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

Edward Lamar Carpenter, Buckeye
In Propria Persona

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Vásquez authored the decision of the Court, in which Judge Espinosa and Judge Eppich concurred. VÁSQUEZ, Presiding Judge: ¶1 Edward Carpenter seeks review of the trial court's order dismissing his successive notice of post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. We will not disturb that ruling unless the court abused its discretion. See State v. Roseberry, 237 Ariz. 507, ¶ 7 (2015). We find no such abuse here. ¶2 After a jury trial, Carpenter was convicted of five counts of fraudulent schemes and artifices and five counts of fraudulent schemes and practices. In 2011, the trial court found Carpenter had one historical prior felony conviction and sentenced him to enhanced, concurrent prison terms, the longest of which were twelve years. We affirmed Carpenter's convictions and sentences on appeal, State v. Carpenter, No. 1 CA-CR 11-0083 (Ariz. App. Oct. 16, 2012) (mem. decision), and we denied relief from the court's dismissal of his Rule 32 petition, State v. Carpenter, No. 1 CA-CR 13-0811 PRPC (Ariz. App. Apr. 28, 2015) (mem. decision). ¶3 In March 2018, Carpenter filed a "Motion to Request New Hearing on PCR Pursuant to A.R.S. Rule 32.1(e) 1, 2 (and) 3, (f) (and) Rule 32.2(b)," which the trial court treated as an untimely, successive notice of post-conviction relief. He asserted trial counsel was ineffective, claiming "many [of the] grounds of counsel's ineffective representation" were newly discovered, including his claim that trial counsel had failed to object to the court's use of an "'absolved'" probation as a prior felony conviction at sentencing, and maintained his late filing was through no fault of his own. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.1(a), (e), (f). The court summarily dismissed the Rule 32 proceeding, concluding Carpenter was not entitled to relief under 3 Rule 32.1(f), most of his claims were precluded, and he did not establish a claim of newly discovered evidence. This petition for review followed. ¶4 On review, Carpenter seems to reassert that the prior felony conviction the trial court relied on at sentencing should have been designated a misdemeanor, counsel was ineffective for failing to inform him of this, and his claim is based on newly discovered evidence. We have reviewed the record and the court's ruling and conclude it correctly rejected Carpenter's claims. We therefore adopt the court's ruling. See State v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 274 (App. 1993) (when trial court has correctly ruled on issues raised "in a fashion that will allow any court in the future to understand the resolution[, n]o useful purpose would be served by this court rehashing the trial court's correct ruling in a written decision"). ¶5 We grant review but deny relief.