Court of Appeals of Arizona, Second Division, Department A
August 15, 2013
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,
RENE JESSIE MOROYOQUI, Petitioner.
Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court
PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MARICOPA COUNTY Cause No. CR2008123388001DT Honorable Susanna C. Pineda, Judge.
Rene Jessie Moroyoqui Florence In Propria Persona.
MICHAEL MILLER, JUDGE.
¶ 1 Petitioner Rene Moroyoqui seeks review of the trial court's order denying his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. "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, ¶ 4, 166 P.3d 945, 948 (App. 2007). Moroyoqui has not sustained his burden of establishing such abuse here.
¶ 2 Pursuant to a plea agreement, Moroyoqui was convicted of second-degree murder and burglary. The trial court imposed a stipulated prison term of twenty-two years on the murder conviction and a consecutive, enhanced, presumptive prison term of 10.5 years on the burglary charge. Moroyoqui thereafter initiated a proceeding for postconviction relief, and appointed counsel filed a notice stating she had reviewed the record and was "unable to find any claims for relief to raise in post-conviction relief proceedings." The court granted Moroyoqui extensions of time in which to file a pro se petition—running until May 26, 2010. Moroyoqui did not file a petition, and the trial court dismissed the proceeding in October 2010.
¶ 3 In May 2012, Moroyoqui filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing his guilty plea had been entered in violation of his right to due process and he had received ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court correctly treated the petition as one for post-conviction relief, see Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.3, and summarily denied relief, concluding Moroyoqui's claims could not be raised in a successive Rule 32 proceeding.
¶ 4 On review, Moroyoqui repeats the claims raised below, arguing he should be resentenced. We agree with the trial court, however, that Moroyoqui's claims are precluded by his failure to raise them in his first Rule 32 proceeding in 2010. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a)(3). Moroyoqui has not established that any of the exceptions to preclusion apply. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b). Therefore, the court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Moroyoqui's petition. Although we grant the petition for review, we deny relief.
CONCURRING: JOSEPH W. HOWARD, Chief Judge, GARYE L. VÁSQUEZ, Presiding Judge.