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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

v.

RICHIE LEE CARVER, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 15-0356 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2007-006369-002 DT

The Honorable Arthur T. Anderson, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Arthur G. Hazelton, Jr.

Counsel for Respondent

Richie Lee Carver, San Luis

Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge James P. Beene joined.
STATE v. CARVER

Decision of the Court

2

W I N T H R O P, Judge:

¶1 Petitioner, Richie Lee Carver, petitions this court for review 

of the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. A jury convicted 

Carver of burglary, aggravated assault, murder, and misconduct involving 

a weapon. The court sentenced Carver to consecutive terms of natural life 

and 11.25 years’ imprisonment. This court affirmed Carver’s convictions 

and sentences on direct appeal. State v. Carver, 1 CA-CR 08-0781, 1 CA-CR 

09-0090, 2013 WL 708118 (Ariz. App. Feb. 26, 2013). We have considered 

the petition for review and, for the reasons stated, grant review but deny 

relief.

¶2 Carver argued ineffective assistance of both trial and 

appellate counsel and prosecutorial misconduct in his petition for postconviction relief. On review, although he references all three claims, Carver 

only argues ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Carver also appears to 

incorporate by reference other issues and arguments that are not set forth 

in his petition for review. A petition for review must set forth specific 

claims, present sufficient argument supported by legal authority, and 

include citation to the record. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii) (stating that 

the petition shall contain “[t]he issues which were decided by the trial court 

and which the defendant wishes to present to the appellate court for 

review”), (iv) (stating that the petition shall contain “[t]he reasons why the 

petition should be granted” and either an appendix or “specific references 

to the record,” but “shall not incorporate any document by reference, except 

the appendices”); State v. Rodriguez, 227 Ariz. 58, 61 n.4, ¶ 12, 251 P.3d 1045, 

1048 n.4 (App. 2010) (declining to address an argument not presented in the 

petition). Failure to comply with Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32 

will result in a finding that a petitioner has waived his right to present a 

Rule 32 petition. See State v. Herrera, 121 Ariz. 12, 14-15, 588 P.2d 305, 307-

08 (1978), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 949 (1979).

¶3 Although Carver lists three claims in his petition, he develops 

only one for review. Therefore, we address only Carver’s claim of 

ineffective assistance of trial counsel and deem Carver’s other two claims 

as waived on review. Carver’s petition for review is essentially a recitation 

of the procedural history of the case followed by a summary of his claim of 

ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Carver asserts that trial counsel did 

not adequately confront and impeach the State’s witnesses, and that trial 

counsel failed to establish Carver’s innocence. Carver further alleges that 

trial counsel was ineffective at sentencing because he failed to fully present 

an adequate defense and failed to adequately prepare defense experts for

trial. The petition for review fails to provide facts and evidence to support 
STATE v. CARVER

Decision of the Court

3

a finding of deficient representation by trial counsel. Carver develops no 

argument explaining why he believes the trial court’s ruling is legally or 

factually incorrect, and he fails to provide detail and specificity to support 

his claim that he was prejudiced by trial counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness. 

In the absence of any developed argument that the court erred in rejecting 

those claims, we are compelled to deny relief. See State v. Stefanovich, 232 

Ariz. 154, 158, ¶ 16, 302 P.3d 679, 683 (App. 2013) (concluding that an 

insufficient argument waives a claim on review).

¶4 Accordingly, although we grant review, we deny relief.