NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE

LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

v.

GERALD ALLEN WILSON, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 13-0168 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2010-132574-002

The Honorable Joseph C. Welty, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Arthur G. Hazelton, Jr.

Counsel for Respondent

Gerald Allen Wilson, Kingman

Petitioner
STATE v. WILSON

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Chief Judge Diane M. Johnsen delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Presiding Judge Maurice Portley and Judge Michael J. Brown

joined.

J O H N S E N, Chief Judge:

¶1 Gerald Allen Wilson petitions this court for review from the 

dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. We grant review and

deny relief.

¶2 A jury convicted Wilson of two counts each of possession or 

use of dangerous drugs, possession of drug paraphernalia and 

misconduct involving weapons. The superior court sentenced Wilson to 

an aggregate term of 14 years' imprisonment, and we affirmed his 

convictions and sentences on direct appeal. State v. Wilson, 1 CA-CR 11-

0292, ¶¶ 1, 21 (Ariz. App. Apr. 12, 2012). Wilson filed a pro se petition for 

post-conviction relief after his counsel found no colorable claim for relief. 

The superior court summarily dismissed the petition and Wilson now 

seeks review. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal 

Procedure 32.9(c). 

¶3 Wilson's petition for review lists fifteen separate issues, yet 

he provides little or no supporting argument, no supporting legal 

authority and no citation to the record for most of those issues. A petition 

for review may not incorporate by reference any issue or argument. 

Further, the petition must set forth specific claims, present sufficient 

argument supported by legal authority and include citation to the record. 

State v. Bortz, 169 Ariz. 575, 577, 821 P.2d 236, 238 (App. 1991); Ariz. R. 

Crim. P. 32.5, 32.9(c). "[C]ompliance with Rule 32 is not a mere formality." 

Canion v. Cole, 210 Ariz. 598, 600, ¶ 11, 115 P.3d 1261, 1263 (2005). A 

petitioner must "strictly comply" with Rule 32 in order to be entitled to 

relief. Id. Therefore, we address only those issues for which Wilson sets 

forth specific claims he supports with sufficient argument and citation to 

both legal authority and the record. Wilson has abandoned and waived 

the issues he does not properly present and support. 

¶4 Wilson argues the superior court erred when it failed to 

suppress evidence on various grounds and when it admitted "tainted" 
STATE v. WILSON

Decision of the Court

3

evidence. He further argues there was insufficient evidence to support his 

conviction for misconduct involving weapons as charged in count two. 

Wilson challenged the court's failure to suppress evidence on direct 

appeal and could have raised the other issues on direct appeal. Any claim 

a defendant raised or could have raised on direct appeal is precluded. 

Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a). None of the exceptions in Rule 32.2(b) applies. 

¶5 Wilson also argues his trial counsel was ineffective for 

various reasons. To state a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of 

counsel, a defendant must show that counsel's performance fell below 

objectively reasonable standards and that the deficient performance 

prejudiced the defendant. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 

(1984). Wilson argues his trial counsel should have offered in evidence 

photographs to show that swords and other weapons were affixed to the 

wall of the home at the time of the search. We will not consider that 

argument, however, because he did not present it in the petition he filed 

in the superior court. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c) (providing for this 

court’s “review of the actions of the trial court”). Otherwise, Wilson does 

not sufficiently identify what counsel did or failed to do, how counsel's 

action or inaction fell below objectively reasonable standards or how any 

action or inaction of counsel prejudiced him. Wilson has, therefore, failed 

to state any colorable claims for relief based on ineffective assistance of 

counsel.

¶6 We grant review and deny relief. All other issues Wilson

references in his petition for review that we have not addressed above are 

abandoned and waived because he failed to provide sufficient argument 

and/or citation to both legal authority and the record.