STATE OF ARIZONA v. ARTEMIO H. VARELA
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. ARTEMIO HERNANDEZ VARELA, Petitioner. No. 2 CA-CR 2016-0369-PR Filed January 6, 2017 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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 Pinal County No. S1100CR201400054 The Honorable Joseph R. Georgini, Judge APPEAL DISMISSED COUNSEL M. Lando Voyles, Pinal County Attorney By Wade C. Tanner, Deputy County Attorney, Florence Counsel for Respondent Artemio H. Varela, Kingman In Propria Persona STATE v. VARELA Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Vásquez authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Howard and Chief Judge Eckerstrom concurred. V Á S Q U E Z, Judge: ¶1 Artemio Varela seeks review of the trial court’s rulings on various motions filed in his ongoing post-conviction proceeding under Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. Because there is no final decision on a petition for post-conviction relief for us to review pursuant to Rule 32.9(c), we dismiss the petition for review. ¶2 After a jury trial, Varela was convicted of three counts of sexual abuse and sentenced to consecutive, 2.25-year prison terms for each offense. He timely appealed, but this court later dismissed that appeal pursuant to Varela’s motion. Varela filed a notice of post-conviction relief through counsel but later decided to proceed pro se. He filed a variety of motions, including motions seeking to compel discovery, require the Department of Corrections to correct its time computation, and “expunge” from the record his “rape charge and child molestation charge.” He additionally sought leave to file an “untimely appeal” and filed a “delayed” motion for a new trial. The trial court denied Varela’s motions, and this petition for review followed. The court stayed the Rule 32 proceeding pending our decision. ¶3 Although Varela cites Rule 32.9(c) in his petition for review, that rule only permits review of a “final decision of the trial court on the petition for post-conviction relief or the motion for rehearing.” The post-conviction proceeding has been stayed, and there is no final decision for this court to review.1 Accordingly, we dismiss Varela’s petition for review. 1In his reply to the state’s response to his petition for review, Varela states he “d[oes] not seek special action” 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.
