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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

JOAQUIN VILLARREAL, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 17-0205 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2014-147235-001

The Honorable Teresa A. Sanders, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Lisa Marie Martin

Counsel for Respondent

Joaquin Villarreal, Eloy

Petitioner

FILED 3-6-18
STATE v. VILLARREAL

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Jennifer B. Campbell delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop and Judge Paul J. McMurdie joined.

C A M P B E L L, Judge:

¶1 Joaquin Villarreal petitions this court for review from the 

dismissal of his of-right petition for post-conviction relief (“PCR”) filed 

pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure (“Rule”) 32.1. We have 

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

but deny relief.

¶2 In 2016, Villarreal pled guilty to possession or use of 

dangerous drugs with one prior felony conviction. As set forth in the plea 

agreement, Villarreal stipulated to an aggravated term of seven years’ 

imprisonment, and the superior court sentenced him accordingly.

¶3 Villarreal timely commenced PCR proceedings. The superior 

court appointed counsel and after reviewing the record, she notified the 

court she had found no colorable claims for relief. Villarreal then filed a pro 

per PCR raising nineteen claims, which the superior court summarily 

dismissed. This petition for review followed. 

¶4 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will 

not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief. 

See State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 576-77, ¶ 19 (2012). It is the petitioner’s 

burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion. See State v. 

Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 538, ¶ 1 (App. 2011) (petitioner has burden of 

establishing abuse of discretion on review).

¶5 On review, Villarreal argues that: (1) the superior court erred 

by finding claim numbers 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 15, and 18 waived upon 

entering the guilty plea; (2) the superior court erred by finding claim

numbers 1, 2, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, and 17 failed to present a colorable claim; (3) 

fundamental error “exists” in “all” his claims; (4) counsel was ineffective; 

and (5) the superior court erred by adopting the reasoning of the State’s 

response. In his petition for review, Villarreal fails to: (1) identify specific 

claims for relief; (2) present fully and independently developed arguments;

(3) refer to the record or otherwise describe any facts material to our review;
STATE v. VILLARREAL

Decision of the Court

3

(4) cite any legal authority; and (5) explain how the court abused its 

discretion in rejecting his claims. Instead, Villarreal asks this court to

“review de novo” the superior court’s denial of his petition for postconviction relief. 

¶6 As recently held by this court, however, the current Rule 32 

procedure does not require independent review of the record for arguable 

issues or fundamental error. See State v. Chavez, 243 Ariz. 313, 318-19, ¶ 17 

(App. 2017). Although Villarreal seemingly attempts to incorporate by 

reference the issues he raised in the PCR, those arguments were not 

presented in the petition for review and are not properly before this court.

Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1)(iv) (a petition must 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”); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii) (a petition 

must state “the issues which were decided by the trial court and which the 

defendant wishes to present to the appellate court for review”); State v. 

Rodriguez, 227 Ariz. 58, 61 n.4, ¶ 12 (App. 2010) (declining to address an 

argument not presented in petition).1

¶7 “[C]ompliance with Rule 32 is not a mere formality.” Canion

v. Cole, 210 Ariz. 598, 600, ¶ 11 (2005). Indeed, a petitioner must “strictly 

comply” with Rule 32 to be entitled to relief. Id. (citation omitted).

Therefore, all the issues Villarreal references in his petition for review are 

abandoned and waived because he failed to provide argument and citation 

to both legal authority and the record.

 

1 Both Rule 32.9(c)(1)(iv) and 32.9(c)(1)(ii) were renumbered and 

placed Rule 32.9(c)(4)(B) after Villarreal filed his petition for review. Former

Rule 32.9(c)(1)(iv) was materially amended to now require specific 

references to the record for each material fact, Ariz. R. Crim. P. 

32.9(c)(4)(B)(iii). Therefore, we cite to Rule 32.9 as it was in effect in 2017, 

when Villarreal filed his petition for review.
STATE v. VILLARREAL

Decision of the Court

4

¶8 Accordingly, we grant review, but deny relief.