STATE OF ARIZONA v. JOSE VICENTE MONTIEL
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 31 2012 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. JOSE VICENTE MONTIEL, Petitioner. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 CA-CR 2012-0279-PR DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MARICOPA COUNTY Cause No. CR2000007526 Honorable Jeanne Garcia, Judge REVIEW DENIED Jose V. Montiel Florence In Propria Persona K E L L Y, Judge. ¶1 Petitioner Jose Montiel seeks review of the trial court s order summarily dismissing his successive petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. For the reasons that follow, we deny review. ¶2 Montiel pled guilty in 2000 to second-degree murder and was sentenced to an aggravated twenty-year prison term. He filed a notice of post-conviction relief, and appointed counsel filed a notice stating he had reviewed the record and found no grounds to raise in post-conviction proceedings. Although the trial court granted Montiel leave to file a pro se petition, Montiel did not do so, and the court dismissed the of-right Rule 32 proceeding in November 2001. ¶3 Before initiating the instant proceeding, Montiel sought post-conviction relief on five occasions, arguing that his decision to plead guilty had been involuntary because he did not understand the plea agreement, his attorney had not explained the plea agreement adequately, he should have received a mental health evaluation, and his Rule 32 counsel had been ineffective. The trial court summarily dismissed each proceeding, and Montiel did not seek review of those rulings. ¶4 Montiel then filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, again claiming his decision to plead guilty had been involuntary because he spoke only Spanish and did not understand the plea agreement, his Rule 32 counsel had been ineffective for failing to raise claims related to his sentence, and his sentence was disproportionate and violated the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The trial court construed Montiel s petition as a petition for post-conviction relief, see Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.3, and summarily dismissed it, finding his claims precluded pursuant to Rule 32.2. On review, Montiel summarily repeats his claims.1 He does not, however, ¶5 provide any citation to the record or explain how the authority he cites supports his claims. Nor does he acknowledge, much less address, the trial court s determination that his claims are precluded because he either did raise them, or could have raised them, in his numerous previous post-conviction proceedings. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a)(2), (3). 1 Montiel additionally has filed an affidavit detailing various facts related to his claims. Because this affidavit was not provided to the trial court, we do not consider it. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1). 2 Montiel s failure to provide adequate citations to the record or provide any relevant legal argument justifies our summary refusal to accept review. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1) (petition for review must comply with rule governing form of appellate briefs and contain reasons why the petition should be granted and either an appendix or specific references to the record ) and (f) (appellate review under Rule 32.9 discretionary); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.13(c)(1)(vi) (briefs must contain argument and supporting authority); see also State v. Bolton, 182 Ariz. 290, 298, 896 P.2d 830, 838 (1995) (insufficient argument waives claim on review); State v. French, 198 Ariz. 119, ¶ 9, 7 P.3d 128, 131 (App. 2000) (summarily rejecting claims not complying with rules governing form and content of petitions for review), disapproved on other grounds by Stewart v. Smith, 202 Ariz. 446, ¶ 10, 46 P.3d 1067, 1071 (2002). ¶6 Review 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.
