STATE OF ARIZONA v. DAVID ALLEN WILSON

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 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. DAVID ALLEN WILSON, Petitioner. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FILED BY CLERK JUN 27 2012 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO 2 CA-CR 2012-0143-PR DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MARICOPA COUNTY Cause No. CR2009102243001DT Honorable Glenn M. Davis, Judge REVIEW DENIED William G. Montgomery, Maricopa County Attorney By Catherine Leisch David Allen Wilson V Ã S Q U E Z, Presiding Judge. Phoenix Attorneys for Respondent Phoenix In Propria Persona ¶1 Petitioner David Wilson seeks review of the trial court s order denying his of-right 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). ¶2 Pursuant to a plea agreement, Wilson was convicted of discharge of a firearm at a structure and two counts of endangerment. The trial court imposed an enhanced, presumptive, 10.5-year term of imprisonment on the firearm count and, on the two endangerment counts, suspended imposition of sentence and placed Wilson on threeyear terms of probation to begin [u]pon absolute discharge from prison. Thereafter Wilson initiated a post-conviction relief proceeding. Appointed counsel informed the court that she could find no colorable claims for relief to raise, but in his pro se petition, Wilson argued that his plea had not been knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered and that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel. In a thorough, well-reasoned minute entry, the trial court summarily dismissed the petition. ¶3 As the state points out, Wilson s petition for review contains no description of the issues decided by the trial court, or facts material to the consideration of those issues, as required by Rule 32.9(c)(1). He instead attempts to incorporate by reference his petition for post-conviction relief and various other trial-court documents, but that procedure is not permitted. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1)(iv). Likewise, he refers to the pleadings below in giving reasons the petition for review should be granted, see id., but does not explain how the trial court abused its discretion in denying him relief, see Ariz. 2 R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1), and fails to develop adequately the two cursory legal arguments he does present, see State v. Bolton, 182 Ariz. 290, 298, 896 P.2d 830, 838 (1995), one of which was first raised in his reply below, see State v. Lopez, 223 Ariz. 238, ¶¶ 5, 7, 221 P.3d 1052, 1053, 1054 (App. 2009). For all these reasons, we deny review. See State v. Carriger, 143 Ariz. 142, 146, 692 P.2d 991, 995 (1984) ( Petitioners must strictly comply with Rule 32 or be denied relief. ). /s/ Garye L. VÃ¡squez GARYE L. VÃ 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.