STATE OF ARIZONA v. GREGORY ALLEN BEVEL
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 FEB 17 2012 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. GREGORY ALLEN BEVEL, Petitioner. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 CA-CR 2011-0296-PR DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY Cause No. CR20011537 Honorable Howard Fell, Judge Pro Tempore REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED Gregory A. Bevel Florence In Propria Persona B R A M M E R, Judge. ¶1 Pursuant to a plea agreement, petitioner Gregory Bevel was convicted of sexual conduct with a minor, a dangerous crime against children committed in 2001, and sexual conduct with a minor in the second degree, a preparatory dangerous crime against children committed in 1999. In 2002, the trial court sentenced him to an aggravated, twenty-five-year sentence on the first count, and suspended the imposition of sentence and placed him on lifetime probation on the second count, to commence after Bevel completes his prison sentence. ¶2 In April 2010, Bevel filed a pro se notice of post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P., and the trial court appointed counsel to represent him. After appointed counsel filed a notice advising the court she had reviewed the record and had been unable to find any ripe claims to raise in Rule 32 post-conviction proceedings, the court granted Bevel an extension to prepare a pro se petition. Bevel now seeks review of the court s denial of that petition, and its denial of his motion for reconsideration1 of that ruling. Absent a clear abuse of discretion, we will not disturb the trial court s ruling on post-conviction relief. State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390, ¶ 4, 166 P.3d 945, 948 (App. 2007). We find no such abuse here. ¶3 In his pro se petition for review, Bevel argues, as he did below, that his aggravated sentence violated the rules announced in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004); trial counsel was ineffective; his plea was not knowing, voluntary or intelligent; his sentence is cruel and unusual, and disproportionate to the crimes; and, the possible punishment he will receive if he violates his probation is illegal pursuant to State v. Gonzalez, 216 Ariz. 11, 162 P.3d 650 (App. 2007). Bevel also argues the trial court erred in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing before denying his petition below. ¶4 In a thorough, well-reasoned minute entry order, the trial court identified all of the claims Bevel had raised, and resolved them correctly and in a manner permitting 1 We construe this as a motion for rehearing pursuant to Rule 32.9(a), Ariz. R. Crim. P. 2 this court to review and determine the propriety of that order. See State v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 274, 866 P.2d 1358, 1360 (App. 1993). The court correctly concluded the claims raised either were precluded or without merit pursuant to Rules 32.1 and 32.2. No purpose would be served by reiterating the court s ruling in its entirety. See Whipple, 177 Ariz. at 274, 866 P.2d at 1360. Rather, we adopt the court s ruling. ¶5 Because Bevel has not sustained his burden on review of establishing the trial court abused its discretion in denying his petition for post-conviction relief, we grant the petition for review, but deny relief. /s/ J. William Brammer, Jr. J. WILLIAM BRAMMER, JR., Judge CONCURRING: /s/ Joseph W. Howard JOSEPH W. HOWARD, Chief Judge /s/ Peter J. Eckerstrom PETER J. ECKERSTROM, Presiding 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.
