STATE v. MUNIZ-LOERA
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. JESUS MUNIZ-LOERA, Petitioner. No. 1 CA-CR 14-0714 PRPC FILED 8-23-2016 Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Yavapai County No. P1300CR200901327 P1300CR200901328 P1300CR201000771 P1300CR201000772 The Honorable Cele Hancock, Judge REVIEW DENIED COUNSEL Yavapai County Attorney's Office, Prescott By Dana E. Owens Counsel for Respondent Jesus Muniz-Loera, Eloy Petitioner Pro Se STATE v. MUNIZ-LOERA Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Andrew W. Gould delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Peter B. Swann and Judge Patricia A. Orozco joined. G O U L D, Judge: ¶1 Petitioner Jesus Muniz-Loera seeks review of the superior court’s order denying his third petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. Because MunizLoera fails to set forth “the issues which were decided by the trial court and which the defendant wishes to present . . . for review,” and “the reasons why the petition should be granted,” as required by Rule 32.9(c)(1)(ii) and (iv), we deny review. ¶2 After Muniz-Loera filed his third post-conviction relief proceeding, the superior court summarily dismissed. On review, MunizLoera has simply replaced the cover page of his petition for post-conviction relief filed in the superior court with the cover page of his petition for review. No effort is made to address the superior court’s ruling or explain how the court erred in summarily dismissing the proceeding. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1)(i) (petition “shall” set forth “reasons why the petition for review should be granted”); see also State v. Ekmanis, 180 Ariz. 429, 432 (App. 1994) (petition for review must set forth the specific claim with record references and argument); State v. French, 198 Ariz. 119, 122, ¶ 9 (App. 2000) (summarily rejecting claims for failure to comply with Rule 32.9), disapproved on other grounds by Stewart v. Smith, 202 Ariz. 446, 450, ¶ 10 (2002). ¶3 As noted, Rule 32.9(c)(1) limits this court’s review to those “issues which were decided by the trial court” and are presented for review. The rule also provides that “[f]ailure to raise any issue that could be raised in the petition . . . for review shall constitute waiver of appellate review of that issue.” Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1); see also State v. Smith, 184 Ariz. 456, 459 (1996) (no fundamental error review in a post-conviction relief proceeding). Muniz-Loera’s petition for review fails to challenge the superior court’s ruling, and he has therefore waived appellate review of 2 STATE v. MUNIZ-LOERA Decision of the Court those issues. Because he has failed to comply in any meaningful way with the requirements of Rule 32.9, we deny review. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(f) (review discretionary). Amy M. Wood • Clerk of the court FILED: AA 3
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.
