NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.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.

RICHARD RAMSEY, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 13-0233 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

Nos. CR2011-118393-002

 CR2011-123891-001

The Honorable Robert E. Miles, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Susan L. Luder

Counsel for Respondent

Richard Ramsey, San Luis

Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Jon W. Thompson delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Andrew W. Gould and Judge Peter B. Swann joined.
STATE v. RAMSEY

Decision of the Court

2

T H O M P S O N, Judge:

¶1 Petitioner Richard Wayne Ramsey 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 This matter involves two cases. Ramsey pled guilty to 

possession or use of dangerous drugs in the first case and the trial court 

sentenced him to 2.5 years imprisonment. In the second case, Ramsey pled 

guilty to burglary in the third degree and misconduct involving weapons 

and the trial court sentenced him to concurrent terms of six years 

imprisonment for both counts. The court further ordered that Ramsey 

serve the sentences in the second case consecutive to the sentence in the first 

case. Ramsey filed a consolidated pro se petition for post-conviction relief 

of-right in the two cases after his counsel found no colorable claims for 

relief. The trial court granted relief in part and awarded Ramsey additional 

credit for presentence incarceration. The court summarily dismissed the 

remainder of the petition and Ramsey now seeks review. We have 

jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.9(c). 

¶3 Ramsey argues the prosecutor engaged in misconduct at 

sentencing when the prosecutor informed the court the victim of the 

burglary wanted Ramsey to receive the maximum sentence because 

Ramsey took weapons, including fully automatic weapons, during the 

burglary. Ramsey claims that while he burglarized the property, someone 

else had already taken all the weapons. Ramsey argues this representation 

deceived the court and caused the court to impose a greater sentence for 

burglary. Ramsey also claims his counsel was ineffective when counsel 

failed to object to the alleged misrepresentation.

¶4 We deny relief. First, the prosecutor simply relayed the 

victim’s opinion regarding why he believed Ramsey deserved the 

maximum sentence available. Second, Ramsey pled guilty to burglary 

based in part on accomplice liability. Third, of the twenty-nine weapons 

taken from the victim, some were fully automatic and police found five of 

the non-fully automatic weapons in Ramsey’s residence. Fourth, the trial 

court knew Ramsey denied he personally took the weapons even though 

he committed burglary. For these reasons, there was no misrepresentation

to the court. Finally, the record shows the trial court did not consider the 

weapons as a factor for sentencing purposes in any context. Therefore, 

Ramsey suffered no harm.
STATE v. RAMSEY

Decision of the Court

3

¶5 While the petition for review presents additional issues, 

Ramsey 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. State v. Bortz, 169 Ariz. 575, 577, 821 P.2d 236, 

238 (App. 1991); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii

¶6 We grant review and deny relief.