Court of Appeals of Arizona, Second Division, Department A
September 11, 2013
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,
ALEJANDRO MORA ROLON, Petitioner.
Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court
PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MARICOPA COUNTY Cause No. CR1997008498 Honorable Samuel A. Thumma, Judge Honorable Douglas Rayes, Judge
Alejandro Mora Rolon Florence In Propria Persona
MICHAEL MILLER, Judge
¶1 After a jury trial, petitioner Alejandro Rolon was acquitted of kidnapping a nine-year-old victim but found guilty and convicted of child molestation and sexual conduct with a minor; the trial court sentenced him to consecutive prison terms of thirty-three and thirty-five years, respectively. This court affirmed the convictions and sentences on appeal. State v. Rolon, No. 1 CA-CR 00-0855 (memorandum decision filed June 13, 2002). This petition for review follows the trial court's orders dismissing what appears to have been Rolon's third notice of post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P.,  in which Rolon stated he intended to raise claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and actual innocence, and denying his motion for rehearing as untimely filed. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.1(a), (h); see also State v. Petty, 225 Ariz. 369, ¶ 11, 238 P.3d 637, 641 (App. 2010) (ineffective assistance of counsel "cognizable under Rule 32.1(a)").
¶2 We will not disturb the trial court's ruling unless the court clearly abused its discretion. See State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390, ¶ 4, 166 P.3d 945, 948 (App. 2007). We see no such abuse here. The court dismissed Rolon's notice after it identified and properly characterized the claims Rolon had stated he wished to assert in this successive proceeding, concluding correctly Rolon had "failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted in an untimely Rule 32 proceeding." Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.4(a). We need not restate the court's ruling in its entirety here. Rather, we adopt the court's ruling because the record, the rules, and the applicable case law support it. See State v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 274, 866 P.2d 1358, 1360 (App. 1993). Rolon has not sustained his burden of establishing on review that the court abused its discretion by summarily dismissing the notice of post-conviction relief. See Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390, ¶ 4, 166 P.3d at 948.
¶3The petition for review is granted, but the request for relief on review is denied.
CONCURRING JOSEPH W. HOWARD, Chief Judge, GARYE L. VÁSQUEZ, Presiding Judge