STATE v. FELIX
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. JONATHAN MICHAEL FELIX, Petitioner. No. 1 CA-CR 13-0648 PRPC FILED 3-5-2015 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2012-006017-001 The Honorable Pamela Hearn Svoboda, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Diane Meloche Counsel for Respondent Jonathan Michael Felix, Florence Petitioner STATE v. FELIX Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Patricia A. Orozco delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Michael J. Brown joined. O R O Z C O, Judge: ¶1 Petitioner Jonathan Michael Felix petitions this court for review from the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. We have considered the petition for review and, for the reasons stated below, grant review and deny relief. ¶2 Felix pled guilty to two counts of armed robbery and one count each of aggravated assault, kidnapping and misconduct involving weapons. The trial court sentenced him to 10.5 years’ imprisonment for one count of armed robbery and placed him on an aggregate term of four years’ probation for the remaining counts. ¶3 Felix now seeks review of the summary dismissal of his second petition for post-conviction relief. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.9.c. ¶4 We deny relief. None of the issues Felix identifies in his petition for review to this court were raised in the petition for postconviction relief he filed with the trial court. A petition for review may not present issues not first presented to the trial court. State v. Ramirez, 126 Ariz. 464, 467 (App. 1980); State v. Wagstaff, 161 Ariz. 66, 71 (App. 1988); State v. Bortz, 169 Ariz. 575, 577 (App. 1991); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9.c.1(ii). 2 STATE v. FELIX Decision of the Court ¶5 In the petition filed with the trial court, Felix sought copies of a police report, transcripts and various other discovery materials as well as “all evidence” that pertained to his case. These are not cognizable grounds for relief under Rule 32.1. ¶6 For the foregoing reason, grant review and deny relief. : ama 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.
