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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

MIGUEL ALVARADO RAMIREZ, SR., Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 14-0208 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2004-015568-001

The Honorable Joseph C. Welty, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix

By Susan L. Luder

Counsel for Respondent

Miguel Alvarado Ramirez, Sr., Florence

Petitioner
STATE v. RAMIREZ

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Paul J. McMurdie delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Kenton D. Jones and Judge Patricia K. Norris joined.

M c M U R D I E, Judge:

¶1 Petitioner Miguel Alvarado Ramirez, Sr. pled guilty to second 

degree murder and the superior court sentenced him to a presumptive term 

of sixteen years’ imprisonment. Ramirez petitions this court for review 

from the partial summary dismissal of his second petition for postconviction relief.1 He also contends the trial court erred when it denied his 

motions to expand the record.2

¶2 The trial court dismissed the petition for post-conviction relief 

in an order that clearly identified and correctly ruled upon the issues 

Ramirez raised. Further, the court did so in a thorough, well-reasoned 

manner that will allow any future court to understand the court's rulings. 

Under these circumstances, “[n]o useful purpose would be served by this 

court rehashing the trial court's correct ruling in a written decision.” State 

v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 274 (App. 1993). Therefore, we adopt the trial 

court's ruling and deny relief.

¶3 Regarding expansion of the record, “[Arizona Rule of 

Criminal Procedure 32] itself does not provide a process for obtaining 

 

1 The first petition for post-conviction relief was denied because the 

notice was not timely filed. Ramirez argued that the untimely filing was not 

his fault, and so the superior court allowed a second filing. In the second 

petition, counsel for Ramirez could not find a colorable claim. Counsel 

requested, and the superior court granted, counsel’s request that Ramirez 

be allowed to file a supplemental petition. Ramirez filed the supplemental 

petition, and the State filed a response. Based on the supplemental petition, 

the superior court granted relief in part and credited Ramirez with an 

additional 166 days of presentence incarceration.

2 The court granted Ramirez’s first motion to expand the record. The 

supplemental motions to expand were in fact discovery motions. Based on 

the superior court’s ruling on the petition, the discovery motions were 

moot.
STATE v. RAMIREZ

Decision of the Court

3

discovery in [post-conviction relief] proceedings.” Canion v. Cole, 210 Ariz. 

598, 599, ¶ 7 (2005). While a superior court does have “inherent authority to 

grant discovery requests in [post-conviction relief] proceedings upon a 

showing of good cause[,]” id. at 600, ¶ 10, the trial court did not abuse its 

discretion when it held Ramirez failed to show good cause.

¶4 While the petition for review presents additional issues, 

Ramirez did not raise those issues in the petition for post-conviction relief 

he filed below. A petition for review may not present issues not first 

presented to the trial court. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii); State v. Ramirez, 

126 Ariz. 464, 468 (App. 1980); State v. Wagstaff, 161 Ariz. 66, 71 (App. 1988); 

State v. Bortz, 169 Ariz. 575, 577–78 (App. 1991); see also State v. Swoopes, 216 

Ariz. 390, 403, ¶ 41 (App. 2007); State v. Smith, 184 Ariz. 456, 459 (1996) (both 

holding there is no review for fundamental error in a post-conviction relief 

proceeding). Finally, we do not address the issues Ramirez first raised in 

his reply. See State v. Watson, 198 Ariz. 48, 51, ¶ 4 (App. 2000).

¶5 We grant review but deny relief.