STATE OF ARIZONA v. IBRM GREAGOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. IBRM GREAGOR, Petitioner. No. 2 CA-CR 2016-0180-PR Filed June 2, 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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 Nos. CR2012147057001SE and CR2011157511001SE The Honorable Robert L. Gottsfield, Judge REVIEW DENIED Ibrm Greagor, Buckeye In Propria Persona STATE v. GREAGOR 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 Ibrm Greagor seeks review of the trial court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. Because Greagor has not complied with Rule 32.9(c)(1), we deny review. ¶2 Pursuant to a plea agreement, Greagor was convicted of aggravated assault, a domestic-violence offense in CR 2012-147057. The trial court imposed a five-year term of imprisonment. Greagor also pled guilty to one count of kidnapping in CR 2011-157511. The court suspended the imposition of sentence in that cause and ordered Greagor placed on a four-year term of probation upon his release from prison. ¶3 Greagor thereafter sought post-conviction relief, arguing in his petition that his guilty pleas had not been voluntary and that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court summarily denied relief. ¶4 On review, Greagor has filed in this court a copy of his petition for post-conviction relief as his petition for review, and he does not address the trial court’s conclusion that his guilty plea was voluntary and counsel’s performance was reasonable in light of existing law relating to forfeiture by wrongdoing. See State v. King, 212 Ariz. 372, n.5, 132 P.3d 311, 319 n.5 (App. 2006) (“[C]ourts recognize a forfeiture-by-wrongdoing analysis by which a trial court may find that a defendant has forfeited his right of confrontation if the State establishes that the defendant procured or induced the unavailability of the witness.”). Greagor’s petition therefore does not comply in any meaningful way with Rule 32.9(c)(1). 2 STATE v. GREAGOR Decision of the Court ¶5 We deny review. 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.
