STATE OF ARIZONA v. RUBEN ARMANDO SILVA, JR.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. RUBEN ARMANDO SILVA JR., Petitioner. No. 2 CA-CR 2015-0484-PR Filed March 16, 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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 Maricopa County No. CR2012150727001DT The Honorable Cynthia J. Bailey, Judge REVIEW DENIED Ruben Armando Silva Jr., Buckeye In Propria Persona STATE v. SILVA Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Miller authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Vásquez and Chief Judge Eckerstrom concurred. M I L L E R, Judge: ¶1 Ruben Silva Jr. petitions for review of the trial court’s summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. Because Silva does not challenge the basis for the dismissal, which was the determination that his claims were time-barred, we deny review. ¶2 In June 2013, pursuant to a plea agreement, Silva was convicted of misconduct involving weapons and sentenced to a presumptive, 2.5-year term of imprisonment. Silva filed a “Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in state custody (non-death penalty)” in February 2014, and a similar petition in April 2014, in which he raised claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, malicious prosecution, illegal search and seizure, and violation of discovery rules and his right to a speedy trial. The trial court correctly construed his filing as a Rule 32 petition for post-conviction relief, see Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.3, and found Silva’s claims were barred as untimely, see Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.4(a). ¶3 On review, Silva appears only to argue the merits of his claim that the evidence against him was illegally obtained. He does not address the trial court’s ruling that the claims asserted in his untimely petition are time-barred pursuant to Rule 32.4, which was the sole basis for the court’s dismissal. ¶4 Rule 32.9(c)(1) limits this court’s review to those “issues which were decided by the trial court” and are presented for review. It also provides that “[f]ailure to raise any issue that could be raised 2 STATE v. SILVA Decision of the Court in the petition . . . for review shall constitute waiver of appellate review of that issue.” Id. ¶5 Silva’s petition for review fails to challenge the sole issue decided by the trial court, and he has therefore waived appellate review of that issue. Because he has failed to comply in any meaningful way with the requirements of Rule 32.9, we deny review. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(f) (review discretionary); State v. French, 198 Ariz. 119, ¶ 9, 7 P.3d 128, 131 (App. 2000) (summarily rejecting claims for failure to comply with Rule 32.9), disapproved on other grounds by Stewart v. Smith, 202 Ariz. 446, ¶ 10, 46 P.3d 1067, 1071 (2002); cf. State v. Bolton, 182 Ariz. 290, 298, 896 P.2d 830, 838 (1995) (insufficient argument waives review on direct appeal). 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.
