Court Opinion

ID: 9374526
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-23 16:02:13.156908+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:51.531369
License: Public Domain

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  UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

                         JOHN C. STUART, Petitioner.

                          No. 1 CA-CR 22-0395 PRPC
                              FILED 2-23-2023

     Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                          No. CR2008-106594-001
               The Honorable Jennifer C. Ryan-Touhill, Judge

                   REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

                                    COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Faith Cheree Klepper
Counsel for Respondent

John C. Stuart, Eloy
Petitioner

                        MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Jennifer M. Perkins, Judge Angela K. Paton, and Judge D.
Steven Williams delivered the decision of the Court.
                             STATE v. STUART
                            Decision of the Court

PER CURIAM:

¶1            Petitioner John C. Stuart seeks review of the superior court’s
order denying his motion for DNA testing and reports, filed pursuant to
Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure (“Rule”) 32.17. This is petitioner’s
second motion for post-conviction DNA testing and his fourth proceeding
for post-conviction relief in the case overall.

¶2             “Petitioners must strictly comply with Rule 32,” and their
neglect of its procedural requirements will lead to a finding of waiver. State
v. Carriger, 143 Ariz. 142, 146 (1984). Stuart’s petition failed to comply with
Rule 32.16 by not including a copy of the superior court’s ruling on his DNA
motion or any facts or argument explaining why this court should grant
relief on the motion. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.16(c)(2). Instead, Stuart raises
unrelated and untimely arguments pertaining to prior proceedings for
post-conviction relief that are not properly before this court. His failure to
comply with Rule 32.16(c)(2) justifies our refusal to grant review. See Ariz.
R. Crim. P. 32.16(k) (appellate review under Rule 32.16 discretionary); see
also State v. Bolton, 182 Ariz. 290, 298 (1995) (failure to offer argument
sufficient for appellate review waives claim); State v. Stefanovich, 232 Ariz.
154, 158, ¶ 16 (App. 2013) (failure to “develop the argument in any
meaningful way” waives claim).

¶3            For the foregoing reasons, this court denies review.

                           AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
                           FILED: AA

                                        2