STATE OF ARIZONA v. SAMUEL OSCAR ROSTHENHAUSLER
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. SAMUEL OSCAR ROSTHENHAUSLER, Petitioner. No. 2 CA-CR 2018-0068-PR Filed July 9, 2018 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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. 31.19(e). Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Pima County Nos. CR012906001 and CR012907001 The Honorable Kyle Bryson, Judge AFFIRMED Samuel Rosthenhausler, Tucson In Propria Persona STATE v. ROSTHENHAUSLER Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Chief Judge Eckerstrom authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Staring and Judge Brearcliffe concurred. E C K E R S T R O M, Chief Judge: ¶1 Samuel Rosthenhausler seeks review of the trial court’s order denying his motion seeking release from prison for medical reasons. In our discretion, we construe his petition for review filed pursuant to Rule 32.9(c) as a notice of appeal, and affirm the trial court’s order. ¶2 Rosthenhausler was convicted of numerous offenses committed in 1984 and sentenced to concurrent and consecutive prison terms totaling sixty years. In February 2018, he filed a “Medical Release Motion” citing A.R.S. § 13-3961.01 and asserting that he is entitled to compassionate release due to severe health issues, placing his “medical life expectancy” at “[n]ine to twelve months.” The trial court denied the motion, noting that § 13-3961.01 did not apply to defendants who had begun serving a prison sentence and that the Board of Executive Clemency had exclusive authority to consider Rosthenhausler’s request for release, citing A.R.S. § 31-402(A). ¶3 Rosthenhausler then filed the instant petition for review, citing Rule 32.9(c), Ariz. R. Crim. P., and repeating his request for compassionate release pursuant to § 13-3961.01. A petition for review under Rule 32.9(c) is not the proper method to seek review of the trial court’s ruling; Rosthenhausler did not seek relief under Rule 32 and no provision of Rule 32.1 would encompass his request. In our discretion, we therefore construe his petition for review as a notice of appeal filed pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4033(A)(3). However, Rosthenhausler has identified no error in the trial court’s determination that it had no authority to grant compassionate release, and we find none. ¶4 We affirm the trial court’s order denying Rosthenhausler’s motion seeking release from prison. 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.
