STATE OF ARIZONA v. MONDRE KAMONIE BELLE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED BY CLERK NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY 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 AUG 30 2010 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. MONDRE KAMONIE BELLE, Petitioner. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 CA-CR 2010-0150-PR DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY Cause No. CR20010581 Honorable Richard E. Gordon, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED Barbara LaWall, Pima County Attorney By Jacob R. Lines Mondre K. Belle Tucson Attorneys for Respondent Florence In Propria Persona H O W A R D, Chief Judge. ¶1 After a jury trial, petitioner Mondre Belle was found guilty of second- degree burglary, kidnapping, sexual abuse, and four counts of sexual assault. He appealed and this court affirmed his convictions and, as modified by our decision, the sentences imposed. See State v. Belle, No. 2 CA-CR 2002-0222 (memorandum decision filed Feb. 26, 2004). He then sought post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. The trial court denied relief and this court denied relief on review. See State v. Belle, No. 2 CA-CR 2008-0159-PR (memorandum decision filed Jan. 15, 2009). Belle now seeks review of the court s denial of a successive petition for post-conviction relief, in which he raised claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct. ¶2 In a thorough, well-reasoned minute entry, the trial court clearly identified the claims Belle raised in this post-conviction proceeding and found the claims either were essentially the same as the claims Belle had raised in the first post-conviction proceeding or were claims he could have raised in that proceeding or on appeal. Therefore, the court found Rule 32.2 precluded Belle from raising such claims in this proceeding. The court rejected Belle s attempts to avoid the preclusive effect of Rule 32.2 by characterizing the claims as cognizable under Rule 32.1(h) (actual innocence). Nevertheless, the court addressed the claims on their merits [o]ut of an abundance of caution, and found they were not colorable. ¶3 Although the trial court was not required to address the merits of Belle s claims, correctly having found the claims precluded, it did not err when it concluded none of Belle s claims was colorable. Because no purpose would be served by setting forth the court s correct minute entry in its entirety, we adopt that ruling. See State v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 274, 866 P.2d 1358, 1360 (App. 1993) (when court correctly identifies and rules on issues raised in a fashion that will allow any court in the future to understand 2 the resolution[, n]o useful purpose would be served by this court[ s] rehashing the trial court s correct ruling in a written decision ). ¶4 Belle has the burden on review of establishing the trial court abused its discretion in denying post-conviction relief. See State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390, ¶ 4, 166 P.3d 945, 948 (App. 2007) (appellate court will not disturb trial court s ruling on petition for post-conviction absent abuse of discretion). He has not sustained that burden here. Therefore, although we grant Belle s petition for review, we deny relief. /s/ Joseph W. Howard JOSEPH W. HOWARD, Chief Judge CONCURRING: /s/ J. William Brammer, Jr. J. WILLIAM BRAMMER, JR., Presiding Judge /s/ Philip G. Espinosa PHILIP G. ESPINOSA, 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.
