STATE OF ARIZONA v. JOSE ABEL CABRERA-SOMOSA
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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 FILED BY CLERK JUL 31 2013 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. JOSE ABEL CABRERA-SOMOSA, Petitioner. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 CA-CR 2013-0197-PR DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MARICOPA COUNTY Cause No. CR2008006195001DT Honorable Peter J. Cahill, Judge REVIEW DENIED William G. Montgomery, Maricopa County Attorney By Diane Meloche Jose Abel Cabrera-Somosa E C K E R S T R O M, Judge. Phoenix Attorneys for Respondent San Luis In Propria Persona Petitioner Jose Cabrera-Somosa seeks review of the trial court s summary ¶1 dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. We deny review for the following reasons. ¶2 After a jury trial, Cabrera-Somosa was convicted of attempted first-degree murder, aggravated assault, and weapons misconduct. The trial court sentenced him to an aggravated, twenty-year prison term for attempted murder and a consecutive, aggravated, fourteen-year term for aggravated assault, with a presumptive, 2.5-year prison term for weapons misconduct to be served concurrently. On appeal, we reversed his conviction and sentence for weapons misconduct and affirmed his other convictions and sentences. State v. Cabrera-Somosa, No. 1 CA-CR 09-0271 (memorandum decision filed Sept. 14, 2010). ¶3 Cabrera-Somosa filed a timely notice of post-conviction relief, and appointed counsel filed a petition alleging his trial and appellate counsel had been ineffective in failing to challenge (1) the trial court s admission, after a Dessureault hearing,1 of the victim s in-court identification and (2) the imposition of consecutive sentences. In its order dismissing the petition, the court addressed Cabrera-Somosa s claims in detail and concluded he had failed to state a colorable claim for post-conviction relief. ¶4 In his pro se petition for review, Cabrera-Somosa urges this court to review the trial court s ruling and attaches pages from the post-conviction relief petition he filed below. He does not address the court s summary dismissal or advance any basis for 1 State v. Dessureault, 104 Ariz. 380, 453 P.2d 951 (1969). 2 concluding that ruling was incorrect or an abuse of discretion. Because Cabrera-Somosa fails to provide any legal argument relevant to our consideration of the court s order, we deny review. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1) (petition for review must comply with rule governing form of appellate motions and contain reasons why the petition should be granted and either an appendix or specific references to the record ); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(f) (appellate review under Rule 32.9 discretionary); 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, ¶ 10, 46 P.3d 1067, 1071 (2002). ¶5 Accordingly, we deny review. /s/ Peter J. Eckerstrom PETER J. ECKERSTROM, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ Virginia C. Kelly VIRGINIA C. KELLY, 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. 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.
