STATE v. RAMIREZ-MARTINEZ
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. CARMEN SONIA RAMIREZ-MARTINEZ, Petitioner. No. 1 CA-CR 15-0192 PRPC FILED 3-21-2017 Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2012-157074-001 The Honorable Robert L. Gottsfield, Judge Retired REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Susan L. Luder Counsel for Respondent Carmen Sonia Ramirez-Martinez, Goodyear Petitioner MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Randall M. Howe delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop and Judge Jon W. Thompson joined. STATE v. RAMIREZ-MARTINEZ Decision of the Court H O W E, Judge: ¶1 Carmen Sonia Ramirez-Martinez petitions this Court for review from the summary dismissal of her amended petition for post-conviction relief. We have considered the petition for review and, for the reasons stated, grant review but deny relief. ¶2 Ramirez-Martinez pled guilty to shoplifting and received a stipulated sentence of 5 years’ imprisonment. Ramirez-Martinez timely filed a petition for post-conviction relief. Ramirez-Martinez’s appointed counsel then notified the trial court that he had reviewed the record but found no claims to raise in post-conviction proceedings. In her pro se petition for review, Ramirez-Martinez cursorily presents a laundry list of issues with little citation to authority, no application of any authority to the facts of her case, no citation to the record, and no direction to any material to support her factual allegations. Additionally, many of Ramirez-Martinez’s claims have no application to her case, such as the claims premised on a nonexistent jury trial. ¶3 Ramirez-Martinez’s petition consequently warrants no relief. A petition for review must set forth specific claims, present sufficient argument supported by legal authority, and include citation to the record. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1)(iv) (petition must contain “[t]he reasons why the petition should be granted” and either an appendix or “specific references to the record.”); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii) (petition must state “[t]he issues which were decided by the trial court and which the defendant wishes to present to the appellate court for review.”); State v. Rodriguez, 227 Ariz. 58, 61 n.4 ¶ 12, 251 P.3d 1045, 1048 n.4 (App. 2010) (declining to address argument not presented in petition). “[C]ompliance with Rule 32 is not a mere formality.” Canion v. Cole, 210 Ariz. 598, 600 ¶ 11, 115 P.3d 1261, 1263 (2005). A petitioner must “strictly comply” with Rule 32 to be entitled to relief. Id. ¶4 Accordingly, although we grant review, we deny relief. AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court FILED: AA 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.
