STATE OF ARIZONA v. EDWARD JOHN SANDERS

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

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 FILED BY CLERK JUN 28 2011 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. EDWARD JOHN SANDERS, Petitioner. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 CA-CR 2011-0069-PR DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY Cause No. CR20002900 Honorable Howard Fell, Judge Pro Tempore REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED Edward J. Sanders Florence In Propria Persona V Ã S Q U E Z, Presiding Judge. ¶1 Following a jury trial, petitioner Edward Sanders was convicted of first- degree murder, sexual assault, second-degree burglary, kidnapping, and sexual abuse. The trial court sentenced him to consecutive prison terms of natural life and life imprisonment and to concurrent terms of 3.5 years, 5 years, and 1.5 years, respectively. We affirmed his convictions and sentences on appeal. State v. Sanders, No. 2 CA-CR 2005-0284 (memorandum decision filed Dec. 26, 2006). After Sanders s attorney filed a notice in lieu of petition, citing Montgomery v. Sheldon, 181 Ariz. 256, 260, 889 P.2d 614, 618 (1995), stating he was unable to find any colorable claims pursuant to Rule 32, Sanders filed a supplemental, pro se petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. Sanders now challenges the court s denial of that petition. We will not disturb a trial court s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief absent a clear abuse of discretion. State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390, ¶ 4, 166 P.3d 945, 948 (App. 2007). We find no abuse here. ¶2 In his petition for review, Sanders reasserts several of the arguments he raised below: he is entitled to take a lie detector test to prove his innocence; the deoxyribonucleic acid evidence is faulty; he was falsely accused of using a belt buckle to commit the charged offenses; a crime similar to the one he was convicted of was committed while Sanders was in custody; he was denied the right to a speedy trial; a juror harassed him; and, in what appears to be a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Sanders asserts his trial attorney conducted himself inappropriately. ¶3 To the extent Sanders s petition for post-conviction relief presented claims he either raised or could have raised on appeal, they are precluded. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a) (precluding claims based on any ground finally adjudicated on merits on appeal, or waived at trial or on appeal). And, nothing in the petition for review establishes that Rule 32.2(a) is inapplicable to Sanders s petition filed below or that he should be excused from that rule s preclusive effect. In addition, in order to state a colorable claim of 2 ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must establish that counsel s performance fell below an objectively reasonable professional standard and that the deficient performance was prejudicial to the defense. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); State v. Nash, 143 Ariz. 392, 397, 694 P.2d 222, 227 (1985). ¶4 Based on the record before us, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in denying Sanders s petition for post-conviction relief. The court denied relief in a seven-page, detailed and thorough minute entry order that clearly identified each of Sanders s arguments and correctly ruled on them in a manner that will allow any future court to understand their resolution. We therefore approve and adopt the court s ruling and see no need to reiterate it here. See State v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 274, 866 P.2d 1358, 1360 (App. 1993). ¶5 We grant the petition for review but deny relief. /s/ Garye L. VÃ¡squez GARYE L. VÃ SQUEZ, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ Peter J. Eckerstrom PETER J. ECKERSTROM, Judge /s/ Virginia C. Kelly VIRGINIA C. KELLY, Judge 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.