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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE

.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA

, Respondent

,

v.

GUILLERMO LARRAZOLO

, Petitioner

.

No. 1 CA

- CR 23

- 0320 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Yavapai County

No. V1300CR201980107 The Honorable Michael R. Bluff

, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Yavapai County Attorney’s Office

, Camp Verde By Patti Marie Wortman Counsel for Respondent

Guillermo Larrazolo

, Douglas Petitioner FILED 06-20-2024STATE v. LARRAZOLO
Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Maria Elena Cruz delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Paul J. McMurdie and Judge Cynthia J. Bailey joined.

C R U Z

, Judge:

¶1 Guillermo Larrazolo petitions this court for review from the dismissal of his petition for post

- conviction relief. For the reasons that follow

, we grant review but deny relief.

¶2 A jury found Larrazol o guilty of aggravated assault , a Class 4 felony, and two counts of aggravated domestic violence , Class 5 felonies. The trial cou rt found him guilty of misdemeanor disorderly conduct. After considering Larrazol o ’s criminal history, t he court imposed concurrent presumptive prison sentences for the felony convictions, the longest being 10 years. For the misdemeanor conviction, th e court imposed an 81

- day jail

term , which Larrazol o was credited for time served. On direct appeal, this court affirmed Larrazol o ’s convictions and sent ences. State v. Larrazol o , 1 CA

- CR 21

- 0149, 2022 WL 776434 ( Ariz. App. March 15, 2022) (mem. decision).

¶3 Larrazol o then initiated post

- conviction relief ( “ PCR ” ) proceedings in superior court under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure ( “ Rule ” ) 32

, and t he cou rt appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel reviewed the record and discussed the case with Larrazol o , b ut she found

no colorable PCR claims.

¶4 In his subsequent pro se petition, Larrazol o raised multiple claims under Rule 32.1(a) , including: ineffective assistance of trial counsel ( “ IAC ” )

, faulty identification at trial, use of a coerced confession at trial, the
State ’s use of perjured testimony

, improper suppress ion of evidence favorable to the defense, a double jeopardy violatio n, and improper consideration o f Larra zol o ’s prior convictions for sentencing purposes

. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.1(a) ( ground for post

- conviction relief is that “ the defendant ’ s conviction was obtained, or the sentence was imposed, in violation of the United States or Arizona constitutions ” ). Larrazol o also raised claims under Rule 32.1 (e) (newly discovered material facts) and Rule 32.1(h) (actual innocence).STATE v. LARRAZOLO
Decision of the Court

3 ¶5 The superior court found Larrazol o ’s IAC , Rule 32.1(e), and Rule 32.1(h) claim s were not colorable

. See State v. Bennett , 213 Ariz. 562, 567, ¶ 21 (2006) (“To state a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show both that counsel’s performance fell below objectively reasonable standards and that this deficiency prejudiced the defendant. Failure to satisfy either prong of the Strickland test is fatal to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.”) (citations omitted) ; see also State v. Amaral , 239 Ariz. 217, 220, ¶ 11 (2016) ( “ The relevant inquiry for determining whether the [PCR] petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing is whether he has alleged facts which, if true, would probably have changed the verdict or sentence. If the alleged facts would not have probably changed the verdict or sentence, then the claim is subject to summary dismissal.”). The court found Larrazol o ’s remaining Rule 32.1(a) allegations were precluded. See Ari z. R. Crim. P. 32. 2( a )( 2

- 3 ) ( claims that

were adjudicated or waived on direct appeal are generally precluded in a PCR proceeding). This timely petition for review followed. We review a decision denying Rule 32 relief for an abuse of discretion. State v. Gutierrez

, 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012)

. Larrazol o bears the burden of establishing

error

. See State v. Leyva , 241 Ariz. 521, 528

, ¶ 24 (App. 2017) (denying relief on review because “[pet it ioner] has failed to establish the trial court abused its discretion in summarily dismissing his petition for post

- conviction relief.”).

¶6 L arrazol o ’s petition for review fails to present any requisite argument explaining how , in his view, the superior court factually or legally erred by denying his PCR petition

. See Ariz. R. Crim. P.
32. 16(c)(2)( D ) ( requiring petition for review to contain “ reasons why the appellate court should grant the pet it ion , including citations to supporting legal authority, if known.” )

. Specifically, he does not argue that the court erred in finding his claims were not colorable or were precluded. Instead, Larrazol o improperly challenges the sufficiency of trial evidence supporting his convictions , and he repeats his unsupported claims regarding purported “error s during trial.” As the superior court correctly determined

, those issues are precluded because Larrazol o raised or should have raise d them in his direct appeal. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2( a) (2

- 3).

¶7 Given Larrazol o ’s burden to demonstrate error , and his failure to explain why he believes the s uperior court erred, we must deny relief. See State v. Stefanovich , 232 Ariz. 154, 158, ¶ 16 (App. 2013) (concluding that insufficient argument waives a claim on review).STATE v. LARRAZOLO
Decision of the Court

4 ¶8 We grant review and deny relief.