STATE OF ARIZONA v. TRAVIS DONOVAN HILAND
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 AUG 14 2012 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. TRAVIS DONOVAN HILAND, Petitioner. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 CA-CR 2012-0242-PR DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF YAVAPAI COUNTY Cause No. CRP130020070899 Honorable Celé Hancock, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED Sheila Sullivan Polk, Yavapai County Attorney By Sheila Sullivan Polk Craig Williams, Attorney at Law, PLLC By Craig Williams Prescott Attorneys for Respondent Prescott Valley Attorney for Petitioner E C K E R S T R O M, Presiding Judge. ¶1 Pursuant to a 2008 plea agreement, petitioner Travis Hiland was convicted of theft and fraudulent schemes. The trial court sentenced Hiland to an aggravated, nineyear term of imprisonment, to be followed by a seven-year probationary term upon his release from prison. Hiland filed a petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. He now seeks review of the court s dismissal of that petition, and asks that we vacate his plea and sentence and grant a new trial. 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, Hiland argues the trial court abused its discretion by denying post-conviction relief for the following reasons: although he was the least culpable defendant in this matter, he nonetheless received a sentence only one year shorter than the sentences imposed on two of the three other defendants; his sentence was unreasonably disproportionate when compared to the probationary term his father received; and the trial judge, who was not the same as the Rule 32 judge, was impermissibly biased in favor of the state, as evidenced, in part, by the presence of an ex parte letter sent to the judge by a detective who had testified in this case. ¶3 Based on the record before us, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing Hiland s petition for post-conviction relief. The court denied relief as to three of the four defendants, including Hiland, in a twelve-page, detailed and thorough minute entry order that clearly identified, inter alia, each of Hiland s arguments followed by a supplemental order that addressed additional claims specific only to Hiland, and correctly ruled on them in a manner permitting this court to review and determine the propriety of those orders. See State v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 274, 866 2 P.2d 1358, 1360 (App. 1993). No purpose would be served by reiterating the court s rulings in their entirety. See id. Rather, we adopt the court s rulings. ¶4 Accordingly, we grant the petition for review but deny relief. /s/ Peter J. Eckerstrom PETER J. ECKERSTROM, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ Joseph W. Howard JOSEPH W. HOWARD, Chief Judge /s/ J. William Brammer, Jr. J. WILLIAM BRAMMER, JR., 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.
