STATE OF ARIZONA v. EDDIE ORLANDO SANTA CRUZ
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 MAY 13 2010 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. EDDIE ORLANDO SANTA CRUZ, Petitioner. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 CA-CR 2010-0020-PR DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY Cause No. CR-53939 Honorable Carmine Cornelio, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED Barbara LaWall, Pima County Attorney By Jacob R. Lines Eddie Orlando Santa Cruz Tucson Attorneys for Respondent Buckeye In Propria Persona H O W A R D, Chief Judge. ¶1 In this petition for review, petitioner Eddie Santa Cruz challenges the trial court s summary dismissal of what appears to be his fifth petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. We will not disturb a trial court s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief absent an abuse of discretion. State v. Watton, 164 Ariz. 323, 325, 793 P.2d 80, 82 (1990). We find no such abuse here. ¶2 Santa Cruz argues, as he did in his petition below, that he had not known he had Hepatitis C at his September 1997 sentencing. Although Santa Cruz acknowledges he learned of his condition, at latest, before filing his first petition for post-conviction relief, he claims that because he was unaware his diagnosis could be used as a mitigating factor during sentencing, it constitutes newly discovered mitigating evidence that entitles him to be resentenced. Cf. State v. Ellevan, 179 Ariz. 382, 383, 880 P.2d 139, 140 (App. 1994) (finding status of testing positive for human immunodeficiency virus material to sentencing because it can transform into a life sentence a term of years that would otherwise end well within the recipient s probable life span ). The trial court denied post-conviction relief in a minute entry order that clearly identified Santa Cruz s argument and correctly ruled upon it in a manner that will allow this court and any future court to understand its resolution. We therefore adopt the court s ruling and see no need to revisit it. See State v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 274, 866 P.2d 1358, 1360 (App. 1993). ¶3 Because we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Santa Cruz s petition for post-conviction relief, we grant the petition for review but deny relief. /s/ Joseph W. Howard JOSEPH W. HOWARD, Chief Judge CONCURRING: /s/ Philip G. Espinosa PHILIP G. ESPINOSA, Presiding Judge /s/ Virginia C. Kelly VIRGINIA C. KELLY, Judge 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.
