STATE v. PATERAKIS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.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. TERRY LEE PATERAKIS, Petitioner No. 1 CA-CR 12-0630 PRPC FILED 11-7-2013 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2006-048006-001 The Honorable J. Richard Gama, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED COUNSEL Terry Lee Paterakis, Florence Petitioner, In Propria Persona MEMORANDUM DECISION Per Curiam: Presiding Judge Andrew W. Gould, Judge Donn Kessler, and Judge Michael J. Brown delivered the decision of the Court. STATE v. PATERAKIS Decision of the Court P E R C U R I A M: ¶1 In 2006, petitioner Terry Lee Paterakis pled guilty to three counts of armed robbery and the trial court sentenced him to concurrent terms of fifteen years' imprisonment for each count. Paterakis now seeks review of the summary dismissal of his latest successive notice of postconviction relief. We review the summary dismissal of a notice of postconviction relief for abuse of discretion. State v. Watton, 164 Ariz. 323, 325, 793 P.2d 80, 82 (1990). We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.9(c). ¶2 Paterakis properly presents two issues for review. Paterakis argues the trial court violated the terms of his plea agreement when it sentenced him to enhanced sentences and his trial counsel was ineffective when he failed to object at sentencing. ¶3 We deny relief. Paterakis could have raised these issues in a prior, timely post-conviction relief proceeding. In fact, Paterakis raised numerous claims regarding his sentences in his 2010 petition for postconviction relief. Any claim a defendant could have raised in an earlier post-conviction relief proceeding is precluded. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a). None of the exceptions under Rule 32.2(b) apply. ¶4 While Paterakis presents numerous other issues in his petition for review, he did not raise those issues below. A petition for review may not present issues not first presented to the trial court. State v. Bortz, 169 Ariz. 575, 577, 821 P.2d 236, 238 (App. 1991); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii). ¶5 Based on the foregoing, we grant review and deny relief. :mjt 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
