STATE v. NEUENDORF
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZ. R. SUP. CT. 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. JOHN CALVIN NEUENDORF, Petitioner. No. 1 CA-CR 12-0647-PR Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2009-167757-001 The Honorable Karen L. O Connor, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED COUNSEL John Calvin Neuendorf, II, Buckeye Pro Se MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Maurice Portley delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge John C. Gemmill and Judge Kent E. Cattani joined. P O R T L E Y, Judge: State v. Neuendorf Decision of the Court ¶1 Petitioner John Calvin Neuendorf pled guilty to aggravated assault and attempted aggravated assault. The trial court sentenced him to ten years' imprisonment for aggravated assault and placed him on four years' probation for attempted aggravated assault. Neuendorf now seeks review of the summary dismissal of a pleading the trial court properly treated as Neuendorf's successive petition for post-conviction relief. We review the summary dismissal of a petition for post-conviction relief for abuse of discretion. State v. Watton, 164 Ariz. 323, 325, 793 P.2d 80, 82 (1990). We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.9(c). ¶2 In his petition for review, Neuendorf argues his trial counsel was ineffective because he lied to Neuendorf to convince him to accept the plea offer. We deny relief. Neuendorf has raised this same claim in each of his prior petitions for post-conviction relief. Any claim a defendant raised in an earlier post-conviction relief proceeding is precluded. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a)(2). None of the exceptions under Rule 32.2(b) apply. ¶3 While the petition for review presents several other issues, Neuendorf did not raise those issues in the petition for post-conviction relief he filed below. A petition for review may not present issues not first presented to the trial court. State v. Bortz, 169 Ariz. 575, 577, 821 P.2d 236, 238 (App. 1991); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii). ¶4 We grant review and deny relief.
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.
