STATE OF ARIZONA v. ERIC MARK SUTHERLAND
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED BY CLERK NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 MAR 11 2011 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. ERIC MARK SUTHERLAND, Petitioner. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 CA-CR 2010-0391-PR DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY Cause No. CR56228 Honorable Richard Gordon, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED Barbara LaWall, Pima County Attorney By Jacob R. Lines Eric Sutherland Tucson Attorneys for Respondent Buckeye In Propria Persona E C K E R S T R O M, Judge. ¶1 Petitioner Eric Sutherland seeks review of the trial court s summary dismissal of his successive petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. We will not disturb this ruling unless the court clearly has abused its discretion. State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390, ¶ 4, 166 P.3d 945, 948 (App. 2007). ¶2 After a 1997 jury trial, Sutherland was convicted of theft and trafficking in stolen property and was sentenced to concurrent, twenty-year prison terms. We affirmed his convictions and sentences on appeal. State v. Sutherland, No. 2 CA-CR 97-0498 (memorandum decision filed Jul. 29, 1999). He then filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which the trial court summarily denied. He filed his second notice of postconviction relief in 2003, agreeing with the court that various other pleadings he previously had filed should be treated as his second Rule 32 petition. The trial court summarily denied his claims and we denied Sutherland relief on his subsequent petition for review. State v. Sutherland, No. 2 CA-CR 2004-0269-PR (decision order filed Oct. 31, 2005). ¶3 Sutherland filed his third notice for post-conviction relief in July 2006, asserting he had obtained new evidence through a handwriting expert w[h]ich shows and proves the prosecutor, state s witnesses, [and law enforcement] officers conspired to frame [him] by fabricating evidence, suborn[]ing perjury, and obstructing justice. He also filed a motion to modify his release conditions, which the trial court denied. After Sutherland failed to file a Rule 32 petition, the court summarily denied post-conviction relief. ¶4 In April 2010, Sutherland filed a letter raising various claims. The trial court characterized the letter as a notice of post-conviction relief and ordered Sutherland to file an accompanying petition. Sutherland complied, raising claims of ineffective 2 assistance of trial counsel, appellate counsel, and Rule 32 counsel and asserting his convictions were a result of a conspiracy involving various judges, as well as a witness and the prosecutor, both of whom Sutherland alleged had forged signatures on documents admitted into evidence. Sutherland attached various documents purporting to support his claims, including an affidavit from a document examiner who opined the prosecutor had forged a signature on a bill of sale apparently presented at trial. The court found Sutherland s claims precluded, summarily dismissed his petition, and denied Sutherland s motion for rehearing. This petition for review followed. ¶5 Sutherland asserts preclusion should not apply to his claims, arguing that previous Judges engaged in fraud in order to invoke the preclusionary [r]ules ; that newly discovered evidence proved a conspiracy to frame [him] by fabricating the evidence prior to arrest ; that his attorneys had failed to investigate his case adequately; that newly discovered facts showed error or outright fraud . . . in regards to the Indictment, and that no second or third Rule 32 [petition] was ever filed ; and, finally, that his Fourth Amendment rights had been violated because the state had manufactured evidence prior to his arrest that was the basis of probable cause. ¶6 But Sutherland fails to explain his arguments or provide citations to supporting authority or evidence. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1) (petition for review shall contain [t]he reasons why the petition should be granted and specific references to the record ). We therefore need not address his claims further. Cf. State v. Moody, 208 Ariz. 424, n.9, 94 P.3d 1119, 1147 n.9 (2004) ( [m]erely mentioning an argument is not enough ; failure to argue claim constitutes abandonment on appeal). And, in our 3 review of the record, we find no error in the trial court s summary dismissal of his claims, because Sutherland did not demonstrate any meritorious reasons for failing to raise his claims in his previous petitions for post-conviction relief. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b). Accordingly, we adopt the court s rulings. See State v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 274, 866 P.2d 1358, 1360 (App. 1993) (when court correctly identifies and rules on issues raised in a fashion that will allow any court in the future to understand the resolution[, n]o useful purpose would be served by this court rehashing the trial court s correct ruling in a written decision ). ¶7 We therefore grant review but deny relief. /s/ Peter J. Eckerstrom PETER J. ECKERSTROM, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ Garye L. Vásquez GARYE L. Và SQUEZ, Presiding Judge /s/ Philip G. Espinosa PHILIP G. ESPINOSA, Judge 4
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.
