STATE v. RAMIREZ

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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. MIGUEL ALVARADO RAMIREZ, SR., Petitioner. No. 1 CA-CR 14-0719 PRPC FILED 2-21-2017 Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2004-015568-001 DT The Honorable Joseph C. Welty, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Diane Meloche Counsel for Respondent Miguel Alvarado Ramirez, Sr., Florence Petitioner MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge James P. Beene delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen and Judge Margaret H. Downie joined. STATE v. RAMIREZ Decision of the Court B E E N E, Judge: ¶1 Petitioner Miguel Alvarado Ramirez, Sr. pled guilty to second degree murder and the superior court sentenced him to a presumptive term of sixteen years’ imprisonment. Ramirez petitions for review from the summary dismissal of a petition for writ of habeas corpus the superior court properly treated as Ramirez’s third successive petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.3. Ramirez argues the trial court erred when it denied Ramirez’s requests to expand the record on appeal; that he did not receive all of the discovery he should have received from his counsel and/or the State; and that there was an insufficient factual basis to support his plea. ¶2 We deny relief. First, Ramirez did not raise these issues in the petition at issue below. A petition for review may not present issues not first presented to the trial court. State v. Ramirez, 126 Ariz. 464, 468, 616 P.2d 924, 928 (App. 1980); State v. Wagstaff, 161 Ariz. 66, 71, 775 P.2d 1130, 1135 (App. 1988); State v. Bortz, 169 Ariz. 575, 577-78, 821 P.2d 236, 238-39 (App. 1991); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii); see also State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390, 403, ¶ 41, 166 P.3d 945, 958 (App. 2007); State v. Smith, 184 Ariz. 456, 459, 910 P.2d 1, 4 (1996) (both holding there is no review for fundamental error in a post-conviction relief proceeding). Second, Ramirez has raised and/or could have raised these issues in prior post-conviction relief proceedings. Any claim a defendant raised or could have raised in an earlier postconviction relief proceeding is precluded. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a). None of the exceptions under Rule 32.2(b) apply. ¶3 We grant review but deny relief. AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court FILED: AA 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.