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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

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 06-20-2024
STATE 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 Larrazolo guilty of aggravated assault, a Class 4 

felony, and two counts of aggravated domestic violence, Class 5 felonies.

The trial court found him guilty of misdemeanor disorderly conduct. After 

considering Larrazolo’s criminal history, the court imposed concurrent 

presumptive prison sentences for the felony convictions, the longest being 

10 years. For the misdemeanor conviction, the court imposed an 81-day jail 

term, which Larrazolo was credited for time served. On direct appeal, this 

court affirmed Larrazolo’s convictions and sentences. State v. Larrazolo, 1 

CA-CR 21-0149, 2022 WL 776434 (Ariz. App. March 15, 2022) (mem. 

decision).

¶3 Larrazolo then initiated post-conviction relief (“PCR”) 

proceedings in superior court under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 

(“Rule”) 32, and the court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel 

reviewed the record and discussed the case with Larrazolo, but she found 

no colorable PCR claims.

¶4 In his subsequent pro se petition, Larrazolo 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 suppression of evidence 

favorable to the defense, a double jeopardy violation, and improper 

consideration of Larrazolo’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”). Larrazolo 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 Larrazolo’s IAC, Rule 32.1(e), and 

Rule 32.1(h) claims 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 Larrazolo’s remaining Rule 32.1(a) 

allegations were precluded. See Ariz. 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). Larrazolo bears the burden of establishing 

error. See State v. Leyva, 241 Ariz. 521, 528, ¶ 24 (App. 2017) (denying relief 

on review because “[petitioner] has failed to establish the trial court abused 

its discretion in summarily dismissing his petition for post-conviction 

relief.”).

¶6 Larrazolo’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 petition, 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, 

Larrazolo improperly challenges the sufficiency of trial evidence 

supporting his convictions, and he repeats his unsupported claims 

regarding purported “errors during trial.” As the superior court correctly

determined, those issues are precluded because Larrazolo raised or should 

have raised them in his direct appeal. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a)(2-3).

¶7 Given Larrazolo’s burden to demonstrate error, and his 

failure to explain why he believes the superior 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.