STATE OF ARIZONA v. RICKEY LEE CAMPBELL
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 NOV 20 2012 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. RICKY LEE CAMPBELL, Petitioner. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 CA-CR 2012-0267-PR DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PINAL COUNTY Cause No. S1100CR16812 Honorable Joseph R. Georgini, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED Ricky Lee Campbell K E L L Y, Judge. Florence In Propria Persona ¶1 Petitioner Ricky Campbell seeks review of the trial court s summary dismissal of his successive petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. We grant review and, for the following reasons, deny relief. ¶2 After a jury trial in 1992, Campbell was convicted of three counts of sexual abuse of a child, one count of child molestation, and one count of sexual conduct with a minor. The trial court sentenced him to consecutive, presumptive prison terms of ten years, seventeen years, and twenty years. In a consolidated appeal and petition for review of the court s denial of his first Rule 32 petition, we affirmed his convictions and sentences and denied post-conviction relief. State v. Campbell, Nos. 2 CA-CR 92-0573, 2 CA-CR 95-0258-PR (consolidated) (memorandum decision filed Jan. 25, 1996). We also denied relief on review of the court s denial of one of Campbell s subsequent Rule 32 petitions. State v. Campbell, No. 2 CA-CR 2005-0041-PR (decision order filed Sep. 14, 2005). ¶3 In denying Campbell s most recent petition for post-conviction relief, the trial court found his claims precluded as having been previously ruled upon or untimely filed. In his petition for review, Campbell asserts he is and always has been mentally ill and claims his counsel was ineffective in failing to request a competency examination pursuant to Rule 11, Ariz. R. Crim. P. This claim was considered on its merits and denied in Campbell s first post-conviction proceeding. See Campbell, Nos. 2 CA-CR 920573 & 95-0258-PR, at 4-5. It is therefore precluded. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a)(2) (defendant precluded from relief on any ground [f]inally adjudicated on the merits on appeal or in any previous collateral proceeding ). 2 ¶4 We review a trial court s summary denial of post-conviction relief for an abuse of discretion. State v. Bennett, 213 Ariz. 562, ¶ 17, 146 P.3d 63, 67 (2006). We find none here and, accordingly, relief is denied. /s/ Virginia C. Kelly VIRGINIA C. KELLY, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ Garye L. Vásquez GARYE L. Và SQUEZ, Presiding Judge /s/ Philip G. Espinosa PHILIP G. ESPINOSA, 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.
