STATE OF ARIZONA v. ERIC DEWAYNE PHILLIPS

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 OCT 22 2012 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. ERIC DEWAYNE PHILLIPS, Petitioner. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 CA-CR 2012-0369-PR DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MARICOPA COUNTY Cause No. CR2005127287002DT Honorable Andrew G. Klein, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED Eric D. Phillips Florence In Propria Persona V Ã S Q U E Z, Presiding Judge. ¶1 Pursuant to a plea agreement, petitioner Eric Phillips was convicted in 2006 of armed robbery, and the trial court sentenced him to an aggravated thirteen-year prison term. In the time period between 2006 and 2011, Phillips filed five1 notices of post- 1 Although the trial court refers to the underlying notice as Phillips s sixth notice, because it referred to the notice immediately preceding this one as his fourth, it appears this may be a misstatement. conviction relief pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. The court dismissed each proceeding, the last of which is the subject of the petition for review now before us. We will not disturb a court s ruling on post-conviction relief absent an abuse of discretion. State v. Watton, 164 Ariz. 323, 325, 793 P.2d 80, 82 (1990). We find no such abuse here. ¶2 Although Phillips deems the petition before us as a petition for review from the trial court s October 27, 2011 ruling, in which the court dismissed his October 24, 2011, fifth notice of post-conviction relief, he refers instead to the arguments he raised in his May 26, 2011, fourth notice, which the court dismissed on June 16, 2011. As the court correctly noted in its October 27 ruling, Phillips s notice is, in essence, an untimely motion asking the court to reconsider2 its dismissal of Phillips s fourth notice rather than a new notice of post-conviction relief. In its minute entry dismissing Phillips s fifth notice, the trial court first ¶3 briefly summarized the procedural history of the case. The court then concluded correctly that Phillips had not set forth a colorable claim for post-conviction relief. Based on the record before us, we cannot say the court abused its discretion in dismissing Phillips s notice. The court did so in a detailed ruling that clearly identified Phillips s arguments and correctly ruled on them in a manner that will allow any court in the future to understand their resolution. We therefore approve and adopt the court s ruling and see no need to restate it here. See State v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 274, 866 P.2d 1358, 1360 (App. 1993). 2 The court apparently intended to refer to this as a motion for rehearing rather than a motion for reconsideration. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(a). 2 ¶4 We grant the petition for review but deny relief. /s/ Garye L. VÃ¡squez GARYE L. VÃ 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.