STATE v. RAMIREZ
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. CESAR RAMIREZ RAMIREZ, Petitioner. No. 1 CA-CR 13-0633 PRPC FILED 3-17-2015 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR 2007-157284-001 The Honorable Andrew G. Klein, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Diane Meloche Counsel for Respondent Cesar Ramirez Ramirez, Kingman Petitioner MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Kent E. Cattani, Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop, and Judge Peter B. Swann delivered the decision of the Court. STATE v. RAMIREZ Decision of the Court P E R C U R I A M: ¶1 In 2008, Petitioner Cesar Ramirez Ramirez pled guilty to manslaughter, and the superior court sentenced him to eighteen years’ imprisonment. He now seeks review of the summary dismissal of his successive notice of post-conviction relief. For reasons that follow, we grant review but deny relief. ¶2 The petition for review presents several issues, only one of which was raised below. The properly preserved issue asserts that the superior court erred by imposing an aggravated sentence because, in Ramirez’s view, mitigating circumstances outweighed aggravating circumstances. We deny relief because Ramirez could have raised this claim in his first post-conviction relief proceeding, and the claim is thus precluded under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(a). None of the exceptions to preclusion under Rule 32.2(b) apply. ¶3 Although the petition for review presents additional issues, a petition for review may only present issues that have first been presented to the superior court. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii); State v. Ramirez, 126 Ariz. 464, 467, 616 P.2d 924, 927 (App. 1980); State v. Wagstaff, 161 Ariz. 66, 71, 775 P.2d 1130, 1135 (App. 1988). Because Ramirez did not raise those issues below, they cannot provide a basis for relief in this court. ¶4 Accordingly, we grant review but deny relief. : ama 2
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.
