NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.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.

RONNIE BUSTAMANTE OROZCO, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 13-0015 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2011-114544-003

The Honorable Cynthia Bailey, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Diane Meloche

Counsel for Respondent

Ronnie Bustamante Orozco, Buckeye

Petitioner
STATE v. OROZCO

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Patricia K. Norris delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Donn Kessler and Judge Maurice Portley joined.

N O R R I S, Judge:

¶1 Petitioner Ronnie Bustamante Orozco petitions this court for 

review from the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. We 

have considered the petition for review and, for the reasons stated, grant 

review but deny relief.

¶2 Orozco pleaded guilty to theft and theft of means of 

transportation. The superior court sentenced him to a stipulated term of 

14 years for the theft offense and eight years for the theft of means of 

transportation offense, with the sentences to run concurrently. Orozco 

filed an in propria persona petition for post-conviction relief of-right after 

his counsel found no colorable claims for relief. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 

32.4(c)(2). The superior court summarily dismissed the petition, and 

Orozco now seeks review. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Rule 

of Criminal Procedure 32.9(c). 

¶3 Orozco argues he is entitled to post-conviction relief because 

his counsel was ineffective by failing to adequately investigate his case. 

Orozco asserts that had counsel been more thorough, counsel would have 

learned there was neither a warrant for Orozco’s arrest, which Orozco 

contends occurred on private property, nor probable cause to make a 

warrantless arrest. Orozco relatedly argues the absence of a warrant 

invalidates the sufficiency of the factual basis for his pleas. 

 

¶4 “Probable cause to arrest without a warrant exists if the 

arresting officer possesses information sufficient to justify a reasonable 

and prudent person in believing that a felony has been committed by the 

individual arrested.” State v. Valle, 196 Ariz. 324, 330, ¶ 21, 996 P.2d 125, 

131 (App. 2000) (citation omitted). Here, the record reveals law 

enforcement officers conducted surveillance and observed Orozco operate 

a stolen backhoe. Officers later observed Orozco pulling a stolen trailer 

behind his truck. When officers tried to pull Orozco over, he ran from 

them. Officers later arrested him at the courthouse following a hearing in 

another matter. The officers did not need to obtain a warrant because they 
STATE v. OROZCO

Decision of the Court

3

had observed Orozco operating stolen equipment. Thus, Orozco’s counsel 

did not have a basis to challenge the warrantless arrest and was not 

ineffective. We therefore reject Orozco’s argument he is entitled to postconviction relief for ineffective assistance of counsel and insufficiency of a 

factual basis for his pleas.

1

¶5 Orozco also argues he is entitled to post-conviction relief 

because of newly discovered evidence. In support of this argument, he 

again relies on the absence of a warrant and counsel’s failure to conduct a 

thorough investigation as well as the absence of DNA evidence to connect 

him to the offenses. 

 

¶6 As already discussed, Orozco’s counsel was not ineffective 

in not challenging the warrantless arrest. And, the absence of DNA 

evidence is irrelevant. As the superior court correctly noted, “the 

warrantless arrest, lack of probable cause and lack of DNA [evidence] 

were known to [Orozco] at the time of the plea agreement and therefore 

are inappropriate for relief under a newly discovered evidence remedy.” 

Accordingly, we reject Orozco’s argument he is entitled to post-conviction 

relief because of newly discovered evidence. 

 

¶7 The petition for review presents additional issues, but 

Orozco did not raise those issues in his petition for post-conviction relief. 

Therefore, we will not address them. See State v. Bortz, 169 Ariz. 575, 577, 

821 P.2d 236, 238 (App. 1991) (petition for review may not present issues 

not first presented to the superior court); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii).

¶8 For the above reasons, we deny relief.

 

1We also note that at the change of plea hearing, defense 

counsel summarized the factual basis for Orozco’s pleas, and he 

confirmed its accuracy.