STATE OF ARIZONA v. THOMAS MICHAEL PIERCE

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 DEC 17 2010 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. THOMAS MICHAEL PIERCE, Petitioner. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 CA-CR 2010-0264-PR DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY Cause Nos. CR20582 and CR20748 Honorable Howard Hantman, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED Barbara LaWall, Pima County Attorney By Jacob R. Lines Thomas Michael Pierce Tucson Attorneys for Respondent Florence In Propria Persona V Ã S Q U E Z, Presiding Judge. ¶1 Thomas Pierce petitions this court for review of the trial court s July 26, 2010, denial of his fifth petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. We will not disturb this ruling unless the court clearly has abused its discretion. State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390, ¶ 4, 166 P.3d 945, 948 (App. 2007). ¶2 The procedural history of Pierce s case has been set forth in detail in our 2007 memorandum decision denying relief on his previous petition for review. State v. Pierce, No. 2 CA-CR 2006-0134-PR (memorandum decision filed Jan. 12, 2007). We see no reason to revisit that history here. In May 2010, Pierce filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, asserting the state lacked subject matter jurisdiction over him, reasoning that the Arizona Revised Statutes are invalid, inter alia, because they lack an enacting clause. At a status conference on his petition, Pierce apparently also asserted the Arizona Revised Statutes were invalid because they were enacted by an entity other than the Arizona legislature. Correctly treating Pierce s petition as a petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 32, see Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.3, the trial court denied it, determining the applicable laws were valid and there was no jurisdictional defect. ¶3 On review, Pierce reasserts the claims he made below and contends the trial court erred because it did not order the state to respond to his petition. His petition for review contains no citations to the record and, beyond a smattering of largely unexplained references to the Arizona Constitution, lacks any citation to legal authority supporting his arguments, instead generally referring only to State of Arizona Public Records, Documents, and the Constitution of the State of Arizona and U.S. Supreme Court holdings. Pierce s petition therefore does not meaningfully comply with our rules, and he has failed to demonstrate the trial court abused its discretion in rejecting his claims. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1) (petition for review must comply with rule 2 governing form of appellate briefs and contain reasons why the petition should be granted and either appendix or specific references to the record ); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.13(c)(1)(vi) (briefs must contain argument and supporting authority); see also State v. Bolton, 182 Ariz. 290, 298, 896 P.2d 830, 838 (1995) (insufficient argument waives claim on review); State v. French, 198 Ariz. 119, ¶ 9, 7 P.3d 128, 131 (App. 2000) (summarily rejecting claims not complying with rules governing form and content of petitions for review), disapproved on other grounds by Stewart v. Smith, 202 Ariz. 446, 46 P.3d 1067 (2002). ¶4 Accordingly, we grant review but deny relief. /s/ Garye L. VÃ¡squez GARYE L. VÃ SQUEZ, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ Peter J. Eckerstrom PETER J. ECKERSTROM, Judge /s/ Virginia C. Kelly VIRGINIA C. KELLY, 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.