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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

DOUGLAS JAMES BARTELS, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 13-0834 PRPC

FILED 4-21-2015

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2008-168021-001

The Honorable Maria del Mar Verdin, Retired Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Diane Meloche

Counsel for Respondent

Douglas James Bartels, Florence

Petitioner
STATE v. BARTELS

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Randall M. Howe delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judges Andrew W. Gould and Peter B. Swann joined.

H O W E, Presiding Judge:

¶1 Petitioner Douglas James Bartels 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 

and deny relief. 

¶2 Bartels pled guilty to kidnapping, sexual conduct with a 

minor, and two counts of attempted sexual conduct with a minor, all 

dangerous crimes against children. The trial court sentenced him to an 

aggregate term of thirty years’ imprisonment for kidnapping and sexual 

conduct with a minor and placed him on lifetime probation for the 

remaining counts. Bartels now seeks review of the summary dismissal of 

his third petition for post-conviction relief. We have jurisdiction pursuant 

to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.9(c). 

¶3 Bartels argues that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing

to adequately investigate the case and in pressuring him to accept the plea 

offers. He claims his “of-right” post-conviction relief counsel was also 

ineffective, but for reasons Bartels does not identify. Bartels further 

contends that the trial court erred in imposing lifetime probation and in 

making other unidentified errors; that the grand jury proceedings had

deficiencies; and that the prosecutor engaged in unidentified misconduct. 

¶4 We deny relief. Bartels could have raised all of these issues in 

a prior post-conviction relief proceeding. Any claim a defendant could have 

raised in an earlier post-conviction relief proceeding is precluded. Ariz. R. 

Crim. P. 32.2(a). None of the exceptions under Rule 32.2(b) apply. Bartels 

also waived any claims regarding the grand jury proceedings and the 

prosecutor’s pre-plea conduct when he pled guilty. A plea agreement 

waives all non-jurisdictional defenses, errors, and defects that occurred 

before the plea. State v. Moreno, 134 Ariz. 199, 200, 655 P.2d 23, 24 (App. 

1982), disapproved of on other grounds by State ex rel. Dean v. Dony, 161 Ariz. 

297, 778 P.2d 1193 (1989). While Bartels claims that all of these issues are 

timely because they are based on newly discovered evidence, the “newly 
STATE v. BARTELS

Decision of the Court

3

discovered evidence” consists of Bartels becoming aware of these issues 

after he had a “prison legal assistant” review his file in 2013. This is not 

sufficient to present a colorable claim of newly discovered evidence 

pursuant to Rule 32.1(e). See State v. Bilke, 162 Ariz. 51, 52–53, 781 P.2d 28, 

29–30 (1989) (providing the requirements to obtain post-conviction relief 

based on newly discovered evidence). 

¶5 Bartels also argues the recent United States Supreme Court 

decision in Martinez v. Ryan, -- U.S. --, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012), constitutes a 

significant change in the law that allows him to raise the claims of 

ineffective assistance of counsel in a successive petition for post-conviction 

relief. Martinez held that “[w]here, under state law, claims of ineffective 

assistance of trial counsel must be raised in an initial-review collateral 

proceeding, a procedural default will not bar a federal habeas court from 

hearing a substantial claim of ineffective assistance at trial if, in the initialreview collateral proceeding, there was no counsel or counsel in that 

proceeding was ineffective.” 132 S. Ct. at 1320. This simply means Bartels

can seek habeas corpus relief in federal court based on ineffective assistance 

of trial counsel if he can first show either he had no counsel in his first postconviction relief proceeding or counsel in his first post-conviction relief 

proceeding was ineffective. Martinez does not require a state court to 

consider all untimely claims of ineffective assistance of counsel raised in 

post-conviction proceedings. 

¶6 While Bartels’ petition for review references other issues he 

presented to the trial court, he provides no supporting argument for those 

issues. “Merely mentioning an argument is not enough[.]” State v. Moody, 

208 Ariz. 424, 452 ¶ 101 n.9, 94 P.3d 1119, 1147 n.9 (2004). Further, if Bartels 

meant to incorporate by reference the issues and arguments he presented 

in the petition he filed in the trial court, he may not do so. A petition for 

review may not incorporate by reference any issue or argument. The 

petition must set forth specific claims, present sufficient argument 

supported by legal authority, and include citation to the record. Ariz. R. 

Crim. P. 32.5, 32.9(c); State v. Bortz, 169 Ariz. 575, 577, 821 P.2d 236, 238 

(App. 1991). “[C]ompliance with Rule 32 is not a mere formality.” Canion v. 

Cole, 210 Ariz. 598, 600 ¶ 11, 115 P.3d 1261, 1263 (2005). A petitioner must 

“strictly comply” with Rule 32 in order to be entitled to relief. Id. 

¶7 Finally, while the petition for review arguably presents 

additional issues, Bartels did not raise those issues in the petition for postconviction relief he filed in the trial court. 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, 466, 616 P.2d 924, 926 (App. 
STATE v. BARTELS

Decision of the Court

4

1980); State v. Wagstaff, 161 Ariz. 66, 71, 775 P.2d 1130, 1135 (App. 1988); 

State v. Bortz, 169 Ariz. 575, 577, 821 P.2d 236, 238 (App. 1991).

¶8 We grant review and deny relief.