Court of Appeals of Arizona, Second Division, Department B
September 25, 2013
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,
MARK DALE CRAWFORD, Petitioner.
Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court
PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MARICOPA COUNTY Cause No. CR2005031036001SE Honorable Brian K. Ishikawa, Judge
Mark D. Crawford Mesa In Propria Persona.
¶1 Petitioner Mark Crawford 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). Crawford has not sustained his burden of establishing such abuse here.
¶2 Pursuant to a plea agreement, Crawford was convicted of two counts of attempted sexual exploitation of a minor, dangerous crimes against children. The trial court imposed a mitigated five-year prison sentence on the first count, and suspended the imposition of sentence on the second count, placing Crawford on a lifetime term of probation. Thereafter, Crawford sought post-conviction relief in 2006, 2008, and 2010. On each occasion, relief was denied.
¶3 Crawford filed a fourth notice of post-conviction relief in September 2011, citing Rule 32.1(e), and arguing in his petition that he was sentenced in violation of his rights against double jeopardy and that A.R.S. § 13-705, the dangerous-crimes-against-children statute, could not be applied to his case. The trial court summarily denied relief, concluding Crawford's claims were precluded.
¶4 On review, Crawford again argues his sentencing violated his rights against double jeopardy and maintains his crimes should not have been designated dangerous crimes against children. As the trial court correctly concluded, these claims, which arise under Rule 32.1(a), are precluded because Crawford could have asserted them in his previous proceedings. And, although Crawford cited Rule 32.1(e) in his notice, he has not identified any "[n]ewly discovered material fact" relevant to his claim or otherwise established that his claims fall into any of the exceptions to preclusion. Therefore, although we grant the petition for review, we deny relief.
CONCURRING: VIRGINIA C. KELLY, Presiding Judge, PETER J. ECKERSTROM, Judge.