STATE OF ARIZONA v. BRIAN WILLIAM MANUEL
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 FEB 14 2013 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. BRIAN WILLIAM MANUEL, Petitioner. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 CA-CR 2012-0446-PR DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY Cause No. CR20083625 Honorable Christopher C. Browning, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED Lori J. Lefferts, Pima County Public Defender By Kristine Maish H O W A R D, Chief Judge. Tucson Attorneys for Petitioner ¶1 Petitioner Brian Manuel seeks review of the trial court s order denying his successive 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 a clear abuse of discretion. State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390, ¶ 4, 166 P.3d 945, 948 (App. 2007). Manuel has not sustained his burden of establishing such abuse here. ¶2 After a jury trial, Manuel was convicted of two counts of aggravated driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor (DUI) and two counts of aggravated driving with an alcohol concentration (AC) of .08 or greater. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent, eight-year terms of imprisonment. This court affirmed his convictions and sentences on appeal. State v. Manuel, No. 2 CA-CR 2010-0303, ¶ 13 (memorandum decision filed July 26, 2011). ¶3 Manuel timely initiated a proceeding for post-conviction relief, raising two claims in his petition. First, that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel because neither trial nor appellate counsel argued A.R.S. § 28-939 requires only one functioning brake lamp and his initial traffic stop, which had been based on an inoperative brake lamp, therefore was unlawful. And, second, that State v. Fikes, 228 Ariz. 389, ¶ 11, 267 P.3d 1181, 1184 (App. 2011), in which this court ruled as a matter of first impression that § 28-939 requires only one functioning break lamp, was a significant change in the law entitling him to relief. The trial court summarily denied relief. 2 On review Manuel contends the court erred in denying [his] ineffective ¶4 assistance of counsel claim, essentially reasserting his arguments made below.1 The trial court, however, correctly and thoroughly identified and addressed Manuel s claims in a well-reasoned minute entry, and [n]o useful purpose would be served by this court rehashing the trial court s correct ruling in a written decision. State v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 274, 866 P.2d 1358, 1360 (App. 1993). We therefore adopt it. Additionally, we note that although Manuel contends on review it is not ¶5 and cannot be known what other lawyers have or have not done in the way of challenging stops on the basis of [§ 28-939], it was his burden to establish that his counsel s performance fell below an objectively reasonable professional standard of care. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). Yet Manuel failed to provide the trial court with an affidavit or other extrinsic support for his assertion that counsel s failure to raise the proposed statutory argument constituted deficient performance and fell below prevailing norms. See State v. Borbon, 146 Ariz. 392, 399, 706 P.2d 718, 725 (1985) (colorable claim of ineffective assistance requires demonstration that counsel s representation fell below the prevailing objective standards ); State v. Donald, 198 Ariz. 406, ¶ 21, 10 P.3d 1193, 1201 (App. 2000) (to warrant evidentiary hearing, Rule 32 claim 1 Manuel does not address on review the court s ruling that Fikes was not a significant change in the law. We therefore do not address that ruling. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1) (petition for review shall contain [t]he reasons why the petition should be granted and specific references to the record ); State v. Rodriguez, 227 Ariz. 58, n.4, 251 P.3d 1045, 1048 n.4 (App. 2010) (declining to address argument not raised in petition for review); see also State v. Bolton, 182 Ariz. 290, 298, 896 P.2d 830, 838 (1995) ( Failure to argue a claim on appeal constitutes waiver of that claim. ). 3 must consist of more than conclusory assertions ). Therefore, although we grant the petition for review, we deny relief. /s/ Joseph W. Howard JOSEPH W. HOWARD, Chief Judge CONCURRING: /s/ Peter J. Eckerstrom PETER J. ECKERSTROM, Presiding Judge /s/ J. William Brammer, Jr. J. WILLIAM BRAMMER, JR., Judge* *A retired judge of the Arizona Court of Appeals authorized and assigned to sit as a judge on the Court of Appeals, Division Two, pursuant to Arizona Supreme Court Order filed December 12, 2012. 4
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.
