State v. Kelley ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                                NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.
    UNDER ARIZ. R. SUP. CT. 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT
    AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED.
    IN THE
    ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
    DIVISION ONE
    STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,
    v.
    TRACY EUGENE KELLEY, Petitioner.
    No. 1 CA-CR 13-0060 PRPC
    FILED 03/18/2014
    Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
    CR2007-149438-001
    CR2008-180037-001
    CR2012-111423-004
    The Honorable Daniel G. Martin, Judge
    REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
    COUNSEL
    Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
    By Diane M. Meloche
    Counsel for Respondent
    Tracy Eugene Kelley, Tucson
    Petitioner
    STATE V. KELLEY
    Decision of the Court
    MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop delivered the decision of the Court, in which
    Presiding Judge Patricia A. Orozco and Judge Kenton D. Jones joined.
    W I N T H R O P, Judge:
    ¶1            Petitioner, Tracy Eugene Kelley (“Kelley”), seeks review of
    the superior court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief,
    filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. Absent an
    abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will not disturb a superior
    court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief. See State v. Gutierrez,
    
    229 Ariz. 573
    , 577, ¶ 19, 
    278 P.3d 1276
    , 1280 (2012). Finding no such error,
    this court grants review but denies relief.
    BACKGROUND
    ¶2           In Maricopa County Superior Court Cause No. CR2012-
    111423-004, Kelley pled guilty to possession or use of methamphetamine
    and misconduct involving weapons, with one historical prior felony
    conviction. Pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 27.8(e), the
    determination of guilt in that case constituted an automatic violation of
    Kelley’s probation in Maricopa County Superior Court Cause Nos.
    CR2008-180037-001 and CR2007-149438-001, and these matters were set
    for disposition hearings.       Although the cases were not formally
    consolidated, the trial court sentenced Kelley in all three cases on August
    3, 2012.
    ¶3            On December 12, 2012, more than ninety days after the entry
    of judgments and sentences, Kelley filed a notice of post-conviction relief
    in which he listed all three cases. Kelley dated the notice November 3,
    2012, and indicated the notice had been mailed November 5, 2012. The
    notice did not set forth any claim or reasons why notice had not been
    timely filed. After finding the notice was untimely filed, the trial court
    summarily dismissed it, and Kelley timely petitioned this court for
    review.
    ANALYSIS
    ¶4            On review, Kelley attempts to rest blame for his untimely
    filing on prison officials, who he asserts did not provide him with the
    2
    STATE V. KELLEY
    Decision of the Court
    “forms for Rule 32” until November 2012. He states that, immediately
    after he received the form, he mailed it to the superior court. However,
    Kelley did not use a form for his notice of post-conviction relief. He filed a
    handwritten pleading, and he offers no explanation why this handwritten
    pleading could not have been timely filed. As noted by the trial court:
    Defendant’s Notice is dated November 3, 2012, and
    states a mailing date of November 5, 2012. As set forth
    above, the Notice was not filed until December 12, 2012.
    Rule 32.4(a) requires that the Notice be filed within the 90-
    day period. Accordingly, based on the filing date, the Notice
    is untimely by 39 days. Some latitude might be given for a
    Notice that is at least mailed prior to the filing deadline,
    assuming some proof was presented as to that mailing date.
    Here, however, no circumstance has been shown that might
    justify Defendant’s untimely filing.
    ¶5             Pursuant to Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure 32.1 and
    32.4(a), Kelley had ninety days from the entry of judgment and sentence to
    file an “of-right” petition for post-conviction relief. Because Kelley failed
    to file timely, and because he did not set forth any claim, or any reasons
    why his notice had not been timely filed, the trial court did not abuse its
    discretion when it summarily dismissed.
    CONCLUSION
    ¶6           For these reasons, although we grant the petition for review,
    we deny relief.
    :gsh
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 1 CA-CR 13-0060

Filed Date: 3/18/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021