Filed: Dec. 04, 2014
Latest Update: Dec. 04, 2014
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24. MEMORANDUM DECISION ECKERSTROM, Chief Judge: 1 Jerme Newman seeks review of the trial court's order summarily dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. We will not disturb that ruling unless the court clearly has abused its discretion. See State v. Swoo
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24. MEMORANDUM DECISION ECKERSTROM, Chief Judge: 1 Jerme Newman seeks review of the trial court's order summarily dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. We will not disturb that ruling unless the court clearly has abused its discretion. See State v. Swoop..
More
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
ECKERSTROM, Chief Judge:
¶1 Jerme Newman seeks review of the trial court's order summarily dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. We will not disturb that ruling unless the court clearly has abused its discretion. See State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390, ¶ 4, 166 P.3d 945, 948 (App. 2007). Newman has not met his burden of establishing such abuse here.
¶2 After a jury trial, Newman was convicted of second-degree burglary and sentenced to a presumptive, 11.25-year sentence. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal. State v. Newman, No. 1 CA-CR 10-0528 (memorandum decision filed Apr. 10, 2012). Newman then sought post-conviction relief, arguing his sentence was "grossly disproportionate and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment." The trial court summarily denied relief, concluding Newman's claim was precluded because he could have raised it on appeal.1
¶3 On review, Newman reurges his claim that his sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. He does not, however, address the trial court's conclusion that the claim is precluded. Newman could have, but did not, raise the claim on appeal. See, e.g., State v. Long, 207 Ariz. 140, ¶¶ 19, 27, 83 P.3d 618, 622, 623-24 (App. 2004) (addressing disproportionality claim on appeal). Thus, it plainly is precluded pursuant to Rule 32.2(a)(3), and the trial court did not err in summarily denying relief.
¶4 We grant review but deny relief.
