STATE OF ARIZONA v. DONALD ALLEN GUADAGNI

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED BY CLERK NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND M AY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24. DEC -2 2009 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. DONALD ALLEN GUADAGNI, Petitioner. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 CA-CR 2009-0204-PR DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY Cause No. CR-20054436 Honorable Hector E. Campoy, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED Barbara LaWall, Pima County Attorney By Jacob R. Lines Donald Allen Guadagni E S P I N O S A, Presiding Judge. Tucson Attorneys for Respondent Tucson In Propria Persona ¶1 Following a jury trial, Donald Allen Guadagni was convicted of bigamy, and the trial court ordered him to pay restitution to his two victims. This court affirmed his conviction on appeal but vacated the restitution order. State v. Guadagni, 218 Ariz. 1, ¶¶ 20, 24, 178 P.3d 473, 479-80 (App. 2008). Guadagni was again ordered to pay restitution to his victims after further proceedings in the trial court, and we affirmed that order on appeal. State v. Guadagni, No. 2 CA-CR 2008-0314 (memorandum decision filed June 26, 2009). Guadagni then filed a petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P., arguing the trial court had violated his Sixth Amendment right to cross-examine one of his victims. The trial court summarily denied relief, finding Guadagni s claim precluded under Rule 32.2(a), and we denied relief on review. See State v. Guadagni, No. 2 CA-CR 2009-0117-PR (memorandum decision filed Sept. 16, 2009). He now challenges the trial court s denial of relief on his second petition for post-conviction relief. We review the ruling for an abuse of discretion. See State v. Watton, 164 Ariz. 323, 325, 793 P.2d 80, 82 (1990). Finding none, we deny relief. ¶2 Guadagni filed a document entitled petition for writ of coram nobis that the trial court treated as a successive petition for post-conviction relief. In it, he asserted the Pima County Attorney s Office had engaged in selective prosecution and other prosecutorial misconduct during trial, his conviction was based on perjured testimony, and his trial and appellate counsel had been ineffective for failing to raise these issues previously. The trial court found, however, that Guadagni had failed to present any cogent claims that 2 would entitle him to a hearing or to any relief. It also found the claims were precluded and denied relief. ¶3 Any claim that could have been raised on direct appeal or in an earlier post- conviction proceeding is precluded, except for claims raised under Rule 32.2(b). Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a). Guadagni s claims all could have been raised on direct appeal or in his previous petition for post-conviction relief, and none falls within the exceptions to preclusion in Rule 32.2(b). We therefore find no abuse of discretion in the trial court s denial of relief and, although we grant review, we likewise deny relief. _______________________________________ PHILIP G. ESPINOSA, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: ____________________________________ JOSEPH W. HOWARD, Chief Judge ____________________________________ GARYE A. VÃ SQUEZ, Judge 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.