STATE OF ARIZONA v. STEPHEN BISHOP

 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 DEC 19 2012 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. STEPHEN BISHOP, Petitioner. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 CA-CR 2012-0306-PR DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY Cause No. CR02292 Honorable Jane L. Eikleberry, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED Barbara LaWall, Pima County Attorney By Nicolette Kneup Stephen Bishop Tucson Attorneys for Respondent Buckeye In Propria Persona H O W A R D, Chief Judge. ¶1 Petitioner Stephen Bishop seeks review of the trial court s order denying his successive 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). Bishop has not sustained his burden of establishing such abuse here. ¶2 After a jury trial, Bishop was convicted of five counts of armed robbery, nine counts of kidnapping, one count of aggravated assault and one count of theft. The trial court sentenced him to a combination of consecutive and concurrent prison terms totaling eighty-four years imprisonment. This court affirmed Bishop s convictions and sentences on appeal and likewise affirmed the trial court s dismissal of Bishop s first petition for post-conviction relief. State v. Bishop, 137 Ariz. 5, 667 P.2d 1331 (App. 1983). Bishop thereafter petitioned for post-conviction relief in 1984 and in 2010. The trial court denied relief in both proceedings and this court denied relief on review. State v. Bishop, No. 2 CA-CR 2010-0316-PR, ¶¶ 1, 5 (memorandum decision filed Feb. 22, 2011). ¶3 In April 2012, Bishop initiated another proceeding for post-conviction relief, claiming in his petition that the United States Supreme Court s decisions in Lafler v. Cooper, ___ U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (2012) and Missouri v. Frye, ___ U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (2012), entitled him to relief based on his trial counsel s allegedly having failed to communicate adequately a plea offer to him. Concluding Lafler and Frye did not constitute a significant change in the law and Bishop s claims therefore were precluded, the trial court summarily denied relief. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2. The court also denied Bishop s request that counsel be appointed. ¶4 On review, Bishop contends the trial court erred in concluding his claim was precluded and in refusing to appoint counsel in this proceeding. And he raises several new claims of ineffective assistance of appellate and Rule 32 counsel. Because 2 Bishop did not raise those claims below, we do not address them on review. See State v. Ramirez, 126 Ariz. 464, 468, 616 P.2d 924, 928 (App. 1980). As to Bishop s other claims, the right to effective assistance of counsel in ¶5 plea bargaining has long existed in this state,1 see State v. Donald, 198 Ariz. 406, ¶ 14, 10 P.3d 1193, 1200 (App. 2000), and we therefore agree with the trial court s conclusions. The court set forth its ruling on Bishop s claims in a thorough, well-reasoned ruling, which we adopt. See State v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 274, 866 P.2d 1358, 1360 (App. 1993) (when trial court correctly rules on issues raised in a fashion that will allow any court in the future to understand the resolution[, n]o useful purpose would be served by this court rehashing the trial court s correct ruling in a written decision ). Thus, although we grant the petition for review, relief is denied. /s/ Joseph W. Howard JOSEPH W. HOWARD, Chief Judge CONCURRING: /s/ Peter J. Eckerstrom PETER J. ECKERSTROM, Presiding Judge /s/ J. William Brammer, Jr. J. WILLIAM BRAMMER, JR., Judge* *A retired judge of the Arizona Court of Appeals authorized and assigned to sit as a judge on the Court of Appeals, Division Two, pursuant to Arizona Supreme Court Order filed August 15, 2012. 1 A significant change in the law requires some transformative event, a clear break from the past. State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, ¶ 8, 260 P.3d 1102, 1105 (App. 2011), quoting State v. Shrum, 220 Ariz. 115, ¶ 15, 203 P.3d 1175, 1178 (2009). 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.