STATE OF ARIZONA v. WILLIAM AVERY PATTERSON
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 MAY -2 2012 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. WILLIAM AVERY PATTERSON, Petitioner. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 CA-CR 2012-0079-PR DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MARICOPA COUNTY Cause No. CR2007171910001DT Honorable Warren J. Granville, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED William G. Montgomery, Maricopa County Attorney By Andrea L. Kever William A. Patterson V à S Q U E Z, Presiding Judge. Phoenix Attorneys for Respondent Buckeye In Propria Persona ¶1 Petitioner William Patterson seeks review of the trial court s order dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. 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). Patterson has not sustained his burden of establishing such abuse here. ¶2 Pursuant to a plea agreement, Patterson was convicted of possession of drug paraphernalia. In September 2008, the trial court imposed a presumptive one-year sentence. In April 2011, Patterson filed a notice of post-conviction relief, asserting without explanation that he was raising claims pursuant to Rule 32.1(e),(f), and (h). The court summarily dismissed his petition. ¶3 On review, in a rather confusing argument, Patterson asserts (1) he is innocent of the crime for which he was convicted, (2) his constitutional rights were violated, (3) he should have been allowed to withdraw from his plea agreement based on his assertion that state capital police lied about [a] video, and (4) he was shocked and bewilder[ed] by the judge and was not mentally competent at the time he signed his plea agreement. ¶4 In a thorough, well-reasoned minute entry order, the trial court correctly determined that Patterson s untimely petition should be dismissed for failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 32. That order is sufficient to allow this or any other court to review and determine its propriety, and therefore no purpose would be served by restating the court s ruling in its entirety. See State v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 274, 866 2 P.2d 1358, 1360 (App. 1993). Rather, we adopt the ruling, and although we grant the petition for review, we deny relief. /s/ Garye L. Vásquez GARYE L. Và SQUEZ, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ Philip G. Espinosa PHILIP G. ESPINOSA, 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.
