STATE OF ARIZONA v. ELIAS B. BLAKE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. ELIAS BRYTON BLAKE, Petitioner. No. 2 CA-CR 2016-0046-PR Filed May 20, 2016 THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24. Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Graham County Nos. CR20080338 and CR20080339 The Honorable Michael D. Peterson, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED Elias B. Blake, Florence In Propria Persona STATE v. BLAKE Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Vásquez authored the decision of the Court, in which Chief Judge Eckerstrom and Judge Miller concurred. V Á S Q U E Z, Presiding Judge: ¶1 Elias Blake seeks review of the trial court’s order summarily dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. We will not disturb that order unless the court clearly abused its discretion. See State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390, ¶ 4, 166 P.3d 945, 948 (App. 2007). Blake has not met his burden of demonstrating such abuse here. ¶2 In 2009, Blake pled guilty to two counts of attempted sexual conduct with a minor. The trial court sentenced him to a tenyear prison term for one count, and suspended the imposition of sentence and imposed lifetime probation for the other. Blake sought post-conviction relief, and appointed counsel filed a notice stating she had found “no colorable claims” to raise pursuant to Rule 32. The court dismissed the proceeding in November 2010 because Blake failed to file a pro se petition within the allotted time. In July 2015, Blake filed a petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that his term of lifetime probation was improper and that the longest term the trial court could impose was five years. The court summarily dismissed the petition, and this petition for review followed. ¶3 On review, Blake again claims the trial court could not impose lifetime probation and instead could impose only a five-year term. Even if Blake were correct, he cannot raise this claim in this untimely proceeding. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.1(c), 32.4(a); see also A.R.S. § 13-1405; 2007 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 290, § 4 (former A.R.S. § 13-902(E)). Thus, the court did not err in summarily dismissing the petition. ¶4 We grant review but deny relief. 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.
