STATE v. MCINTIRE
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. RAY MCINTIRE, JR., Petitioner. No. 1 CA-CR 15-0297 PRPC FILED 3-21-2017 Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2004-016750-001 The Honorable Warren J. Granville, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Diane Meloche Counsel for Respondent Ray McIntire, Jr., Eloy Petitioner STATE v. MCINTIRE Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Paul J. McMurdie delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Kenton D. Jones and Judge Patricia K. Norris joined. M c M U R D I E, Judge: ¶1 A jury found petitioner Ray McIntire, Jr. guilty of four counts of child abuse and sentenced him to an aggregate term of 25 years’ imprisonment. McIntire petitions this court for review from the dismissal of his successive petition for post-conviction relief. This court affirmed the convictions and sentences on direct appeal. State v. McIntire, 1 CA-CR 070668, 2008 WL 5149092 (Ariz. App. Dec. 9, 2008) (mem. decision). ¶2 In a previous post-conviction relief proceeding, McIntire claimed that he was denied effective representation. The superior court denied McIntire’s petition and McIntire did not seek review of the court’s order with this court. In this latest proceeding, McIntire again alleges ineffective assistance of counsel at his trial, sentencing, direct appeal, and post-conviction counsel. McIntire claims each attorney failed to argue that his sentence was illegally enhanced as a dangerous crime against children. He further asserts that his conviction and sentence violate the prohibition against double jeopardy. This court affirmed the convictions and sentences on appeal. Any claim that could have been raised on direct appeal regarding his sentence is precluded. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a). Finally, any claim a defendant raised, or could have raised, in an earlier post-conviction relief proceeding is precluded. Id. The issues presented are defaulted. ¶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.
