STATE v. STICKLE
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. RYAN DON STICKLE, Petitioner. No. 1 CA-CR 16-0037 PRPC FILED 7-20-2017 Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2012-138057-001 The Honorable Margaret R. Mahoney, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Diane Meloche Counsel for Respondent Ryan Don Stickle, Florence Petitioner STATE v. STICKLE Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Margaret H. Downie delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Kenton D. Jones and Judge Donn Kessler1 joined. D O W N I E, Judge: ¶1 Ryan Don Stickle petitions for review from the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. For the following reasons, we grant review but deny relief. ¶2 Stickle pleaded guilty in 2013 to attempted molestation of a child and attempted sexual conduct with a minor, both class 3 felonies and dangerous crimes against children. The superior court sentenced Stickle to ten years’ incarceration and placed him on lifetime probation upon his release from prison. On November 16, 2015, Stickle filed a “Rule 32 PostConviction Relief,” which the superior court dismissed as untimely and substantively deficient. ¶3 Stickle filed his petition for post-conviction relief more than two years after his sentencing. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.4 (“In a Rule 32 ofright proceeding, the notice must be filed within ninety days after the entry of judgment and sentence or within thirty days after the issuance of the final order or mandate by the appellate court . . . .”). Pursuant to Rule 32.1(f), a defendant must demonstrate that the failure to timely file a notice of postconviction relief “was without fault on the defendant’s part.” See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2, 32.4(a). Stickle made no such showing. ¶4 Timeliness aside, the superior court properly dismissed Stickle’s petition on substantive grounds. Stickle signed a plea agreement that stated: “Pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-902, the Defendant may be placed on probation for a lifetime term.” Although Stickle correctly observes that A.R.S. § 13-902(A) caps the probationary period for a class 3 felony at five years, he overlooks § 13-902(E), which states: The Honorable Donn Kessler, Retired Judge of the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, has been authorized to sit in this matter pursuant to Article VI, Section 3 of the Arizona Constitution. 1 2 STATE v. STICKLE Decision of the Court After conviction of a felony offense or an attempt to commit any offense that is included in chapter 14 . . . if probation is available, probation may continue for a term of not less than the term that is specified in subsection A of this section up to and including life . . . . (Emphasis added.) Stickle pleaded guilty to attempted sexual conduct with a minor — a felony offense included in chapter 14 — specifically, A.R.S. § 13-1405. Lifetime probation was therefore appropriate. CONCLUSION ¶5 For the foregoing reasons, we grant review but deny relief. 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.
