STATE OF ARIZONA v. WALTER JAMES VAN JR.
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 SEP 14 2012 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. WALTER JAMES VAN JR., Petitioner. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 CA-CR 2012-0205-PR DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY Cause No. CR52748 Honorable Michael O. Miller, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED Barbara LaWall, Pima County Attorney By Jacob R. Lines Walter J. Van Jr. V à S Q U E Z, Presiding Judge. Tucson Attorneys for Respondent Tucson In Propria Persona ¶1 Petitioner Walter Van Jr. was convicted after a jury trial of armed robbery, kidnapping, first-degree burglary, and aggravated assault. This court affirmed the convictions and the sentences imposed on direct appeal in 1998. State v. Van, No. 2 CACR 96-0550 (memorandum decision filed Jan. 29, 1998). In this petition for review, Van challenges the trial court s denial of relief in what appears to be his fourth postconviction proceeding pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. We will not disturb the court s ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion. See State v. Bennett, 213 Ariz. 562, ¶ 17, 146 P.3d 63, 67 (2006). Van has not met his burden of establishing such abuse here. ¶2 Although Van titled his petition one for writ of habeas corpus, the trial court correctly regarded it as a petition for post-conviction relief.1 The court reviewed the history of this case and Van s previous attempts to seek relief in that court, this court, and the supreme court. The court identified the claims raised in this proceeding and correctly found them precluded, see Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2, and then addressed the merits of the petition in any event. The court need not have addressed Van s claims. But because the court s ruling on the merits appears to be correct and because Van has not persuaded us the court abused its discretion in finding the claims precluded and dismissing his petition, we have no basis for disturbing that ruling. 1 Although the trial court stated at the end of its ruling that it was dismissing Van s notice of post-conviction relief, we believe the court simply misspoke and had regarded the document Van filed as a combined notice and petition for post-conviction relief. The court began the ruling by referring to Van s petition as a petition for post-conviction relief. Additionally, in the petition, Van attempted to fully brief the claims he was raising. 2 ¶3 We grant the petition for review, but we deny Van s request for 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.
