STATE OF ARIZONA v. ERIC WADE HANSON
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 APR 18 2013 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. ERIC WADE HANSON, Petitioner. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 CA-CR 2013-0067-PR DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MARICOPA COUNTY Cause No. CR2002015098 Honorable Karen L. O Connor, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED Eric Hanson E S P I N O S A, Judge. Buckeye In Propria Persona ¶1 Petitioner Eric Hanson was convicted after a jury trial of one count of robbery and two counts of theft of means of transportation, with two historical prior felony convictions. The convictions and the concurrent prison terms, the longest of which were two eighteen-year terms, were affirmed on appeal. State v. Hanson, No. 1 CA-CR 03-0103 (memorandum decision filed Nov. 6, 2003). Hanson now seeks review of the trial court s order dismissing what appears to have been his fourth notice of postconviction 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). Hanson has not met his burden of establishing such abuse here. ¶2 In its minute entry dismissing the notice of post-conviction relief, the trial court correctly identified Hanson s claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and a significant change in the law based on Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.1(a), (g). The court correctly found that any claim of ineffective assistance of counsel would be precluded, see Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a)(3), and that any Blakely-based claim would be patently without merit because Blakely is not retroactively applicable and Hanson s case was final when the Supreme Court decided Blakely on June 24, 2004.1 Hanson has not persuaded us the court abused its discretion in its ruling, 1 We note, too, that Hanson raised the Blakely claim previously and, in its September 27, 2004, minute entry dismissing Hanson s September 10, 2004, notice of post-conviction relief, the trial court rejected the potential claim for the same reason the court rejected the claim in this proceeding. Consequently, the claim also is precluded. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a)(2). 2 which we adopt. See State v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 274, 866 P.2d 1358, 1360 (App. 1993). His contention that this was his first post-conviction proceeding is belied by the record, and he is mistaken that the court was required to appoint counsel to assist him in this successive proceeding. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.4(c)(2). ¶3 We grant Hanson s petition for review, but for the reasons stated, relief is denied. /s/ Philip G. Espinosa PHILIP G. ESPINOSA, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ Garye L. Vásquez GARYE L. Và SQUEZ, Presiding 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.
