STATE OF ARIZONA v. LESLEY KAISER
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. LESLEY KAISER, Petitioner. No. 2 CA-CR 2015-0476-PR Filed May 18, 2016 THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24. Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Pima County No. CR20131990001 The Honorable Kenneth Lee, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED COUNSEL Barbara LaWall, Pima County Attorney By Jacob R. Lines, Deputy County Attorney, Tucson Counsel for Respondent Lesley Kaiser, Tucson In Propria Persona STATE v. KAISER Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Chief Judge Eckerstrom authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Vásquez and Judge Miller concurred. E C K E R S T R O M, Chief Judge: ¶1 Petitioner Lesley Kaiser seeks review of the trial court’s order denying his 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). Kaiser has not sustained his burden of establishing such abuse here. ¶2 After a jury trial, Kaiser was convicted of unlawful discharge of a firearm within city limits, disorderly conduct, and possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited possessor. The trial court sentenced him to presumptive, concurrent terms of imprisonment, the longest of which was ten years. This court affirmed his convictions and sentences on appeal. State v. Kaiser, No. 2 CA-CR 2014-0232 (memorandum decision filed June 9, 2015). ¶3 On December 2, 2015, more than thirty days after this court issued its mandate on appeal on August 11, 2015, Kaiser filed a form “petition for post-conviction relief.” See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.4(a) (to be timely, notice must be filed within thirty days of mandate). On the form Kaiser indicated he was eligible for relief based on the improper admission of evidence at trial, unconstitutional suppression of evidence and use of perjured testimony by the state, violation of the prohibition against double jeopardy and other constitutional rights, existence of newlydiscovered evidence, lack of jurisdiction of the court, and sentencing error. The trial court summarily dismissed the petition, concluding Kaiser had failed to file a timely notice of post-conviction relief. 2 STATE v. KAISER Decision of the Court ¶4 On review, to the extent we understand his claims, Kaiser argues, inter alia, his Fourth Amendment rights and rights against being twice placed in jeopardy were violated, he was improperly sentenced, and the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. He has not, however, addressed the trial court’s conclusion that the proceeding was untimely, or explained how his claims are exempt from preclusion based on untimeliness or his failure to raise them on appeal. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a), 32.4(a). We therefore cannot say the court abused its discretion in dismissing the petition, based on Kaiser’s failure to present a claim raisable in an untimely proceeding or to explain why his claims had not been raised in a timely manner. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b). ¶5 Thus, although we grant the petition for review, we deny relief. 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.
