No. 2 CA-CR 2018-0197-PR
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
The Honorable Janet E. Barton, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
Edward Lamar Carpenter, Buckeye
In Propria Persona
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.
Although Carpenter does not provide the date of the ruling upon which this petition for review is based, it appears he is petitioning from the trial court's ruling filed on May 8, 2018, dismissing his most recent Rule 32 proceeding.
¶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 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").
We note that Carpenter previously raised arguments about the designation of his prior felony conviction as a misdemeanor both on direct appeal and in his prior Rule 32 petition. See Carpenter, No. 1 CA-CR 13-0811 PRPC, ¶ 11; Carpenter, No. 1 CA-CR 11-0083, ¶¶ 15-16.
Carpenter attached to his petition for review a "Motion for Change of Venue for New Hearing on PCR A.R.S. Rule 32.1(e) 1, 2, 3, (f) Rule 32.2(b)," dated May 7, 2018, after the trial court dismissed this Rule 32 proceeding on May 3, but before its ruling was filed on May 8. We do not consider this pleading on review. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(4)(B)(ii) (petition for review "must contain . . . issues the trial court decided that the defendant is presenting for appellate review"). --------
¶5 We grant review but deny relief.