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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

KENNETH MANYGOATS, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 15-0451 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Coconino County

No. S0300CR201200586

The Honorable Dan R. Slayton, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Coconino County Attorney’s Office, Flagstaff

By William P. Ring

Counsel for Respondent

Kenneth Manygoats, Buckeye

Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge James P. Beene joined.
STATE v. MANYGOATS

Decision of the Court

2

W I N T H R O P, Judge:

¶1 Petitioner, Kenneth Manygoats, petitions this court for review 

of the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to 

Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure (“Rule”) 32. We have considered the 

petition for review and, for the reasons stated, grant review but deny relief.

¶2 A jury found Manygoats guilty on three of four charged 

counts: kidnapping, sexual abuse, and assault.1 Manygoats’ defense at trial 

was mistaken identity. After finding Manygoats had five prior felony 

convictions and caused emotional harm to the victim, the trial court 

imposed concurrent, aggravated prison terms for the kidnapping and 

sexual abuse convictions, the longest of which was 17 years. The court 

sentenced Manygoats to time served for the assault conviction. On direct 

appeal, this court affirmed the convictions and sentences. State v. 

Manygoats, 1 CA-CR 13-0070, 2013 WL 6095597 (Ariz. App. Nov. 19, 2013) 

(mem. decision).

¶3 Manygoats filed a timely notice and petition for postconviction relief. In his petition, Manygoats raised a claim of ineffective 

assistance of trial counsel based on counsel’s alleged failure to conduct a 

thorough pre-trial investigation. Specifically, Manygoats argued counsel 

should have investigated the booking police officer’s purported 

observation of the absence of scratch marks on Manygoats’ arms. 

According to Manygoats, the booking officer’s testimony to this effect 

would have impeached the arresting officer’s notation in his report that, 

when he confronted Manygoats soon after the reported crimes occurred 

and near the crime scene, he observed fresh scratch marks on Manygoats’ 

left arm. Manygoats also raised in his petition an ineffective assistance of 

counsel claim based on counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s 

purported attempts to condition the jury during voir dire. The trial court 

summarily denied the petition, and this timely petition for review followed.

¶4 “We will not disturb a trial court’s ruling on a petition for 

post-conviction relief absent a clear abuse of discretion.” State v. Swoopes, 

216 Ariz. 390, 393, ¶ 4, 166 P.3d 945, 948 (App. 2007) (citation omitted). We 

are obliged to uphold the trial court if the result is legally correct for any 

reason. State v. Perez, 141 Ariz. 459, 464, 687 P.2d 1214, 1219 (1984); State v. 

Cantu, 116 Ariz. 356, 358, 569 P.2d 298, 300 (App. 1977).

 

1 The jury returned a “not guilty” verdict on one count of attempted 

sexual assault.
STATE v. MANYGOATS

Decision of the Court

3

¶5 On review, Manygoats argues the trial court erred in 

concluding that, regardless whether Manygoats’ arm had visible scratches 

at the time of his arrest, contradicting evidence on that point would not 

have affected the verdicts. Manygoats also argues the court erred in finding 

he failed to establish a colorable ineffective assistance of counsel claim 

based on counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s questions to the jury 

during voir dire.

¶6 Although the petition for review provides general law 

regarding the standards for resolving ineffective assistance of counsel

claims and the proper purpose of voir dire, the petition does not (1) provide 

substantive arguments that support the ineffective assistance of counsel

claims; (2) identify any legal authority that applies to the ineffective 

assistance of counsel claims; (3) apply legal authority to facts that support 

the ineffective assistance of counsel claims; or (4) provide citations to the 

record.2 And although appendices are permissible under Rule 32.9(c)(1), 

the purpose of an appendix is to support references to the record on review, 

not circumvent the necessity of presenting a fully and independently 

developed argument supported by legal authority and citation to the 

record. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1)(iv). Further, Manygoats merely 

asserts that counsel was ineffective. Ineffective assistance of counsel must 

be a demonstrable reality rather than a matter of speculation. State v. 

McDaniel, 136 Ariz. 188, 198, 665 P.2d 70, 80 (1983), abrogation on other 

grounds recognized in State v. Walton, 159 Ariz. 571, 593-94, 769 P.2d 1017, 

1039-40 (1989) (Feldman, J., concurring). Manygoats has abandoned and 

waived his improperly presented and supported arguments.

¶7 Manygoats also implies that the trial court fundamentally 

erred in denying his ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on 

counsel’s lack of pre-trial investigation. There is no fundamental error 

 

2 Notably, Manygoats does not point out where in the record the 

arresting officer testified that he observed scratches on Manygoats’ arm. 

Also, we do not address Manygoats’ ineffective assistance of counsel claim 

based on his assertion that the lack of scratch marks undermined the 

probable cause required for his arrest. He did not raise this argument in his 

petition for post-conviction relief, and a petition for review may not present 

issues not first presented to the trial court. See State v. Ramirez, 126 Ariz. 

464, 468, 616 P.2d 924, 928 (App. 1980); State v. Wagstaff, 161 Ariz. 66, 71, 775 

P.2d 1130, 1135 (App. 1988), modified on other grounds, 164 Ariz. 485, 794 P.2d 

118 (1990); State v. Bortz, 169 Ariz. 575, 577-78, 821 P.2d 236, 238-39 (App. 

1991); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii).
STATE v. MANYGOATS

Decision of the Court

4

review in a post-conviction relief proceeding. State v. Smith, 184 Ariz. 456, 

460, 910 P.2d 1, 5 (1996).

¶8 Manygoats fails to establish an abuse of discretion by the trial

court in denying the petition for post-conviction relief. Accordingly, 

although we grant review, we deny relief.