STATE OF ARIZONA v. ANANT KUMAR TRIPATI
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. ANANT KUMAR TRIPATI, Petitioner. No. 2 CA-CR 2018-0195-PR Filed August 29, 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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 Maricopa County Nos. CR1992008576 and CR1992009620 The Honorable John Rea, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED Anant Kumar Tripati, Florence In Propria Persona STATE v. TRIPATI Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Eppich authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Vásquez and Judge Espinosa concurred. E P P I C H, Judge: ¶1 Anant Tripati seeks review of the trial court’s order summarily dismissing his untimely and successive “Notice and Petition for Rule 32 – Discovery,” filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. Although we accept review, because we agree with the court that Tripati’s claim is not cognizable under Rule 32, we deny relief. ¶2 After a jury trial in 1993, Tripati was convicted of one count of fraudulent schemes and artifices, one count of false swearing, and two counts of attempted fraudulent schemes and artifices, and was sentenced to concurrent and consecutive prison terms totaling 52.5 years. Tripati has filed numerous successive Rule 32 petitions, 1 including the underlying petition received by the trial court in March 2018, in which he asserted the prison’s failure to treat his various medical conditions constitutes cruel and unusual punishment and that he is entitled to additional discovery regarding this claim. The court dismissed Tripati’s petition, concluding he had failed to raise any issue cognizable under Rule 32.1. This petition for review followed. ¶3 On review, Tripati contends the trial court “erred” in denying his petition. He asserts the sentences imposed did not authorize “the state to continuously inflict punishment such as denial of treatment for serious medical needs,” and that he is entitled to additional discovery to support his claim. We agree with the court that Tripati’s claim is not cognizable under Rule 32. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.1. His claim does not implicate his convictions or sentences, but, rather, concerns the alleged post-trial denial of his rights in prison. ¶4 Nor does Tripati assert that his claim, raised in what appears to be his twenty-first post-conviction proceeding, falls within any of the 1 Although it is not entirely clear, it appears Tripati has initiated approximately twenty prior Rule 32 proceedings. 2 STATE v. TRIPATI Decision of the Court exceptions to preclusion. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.1(d)-(h), 32.4(a). Therefore, the trial court did not err in summarily dismissing Tripati’s petition. See State v. Roseberry, 237 Ariz. 507, ¶ 7 (2015) (post-conviction relief rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion). ¶5 Accordingly, we grant review but deny relief. 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.
