STATE OF ARIZONA v. STEVEN YARRITO

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. STEVEN YARRITO, Petitioner. No. 2 CA-CR 2020-0157-PR Filed September 24, 2020 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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 Yuma County No. S1400CR200900687 The Honorable Mark Wayne Reeves, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED COUNSEL Jon R. Smith, Yuma County Attorney By Charles Platt, Deputy County Attorney, Yuma Counsel for Respondent Steven Yarrito, Florence In Propria Persona STATE v. YARRITO Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Espinosa authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Eppich and Judge Eckerstrom concurred. E S P I N O S A, Judge: ¶1 Steven Yarrito seeks review of the trial court’s ruling summarily dismissing his successive and untimely petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P.1 We will not disturb that order unless the court abused its discretion. See State v. Roseberry, 237 Ariz. 507, ¶ 7 (2015). Yarrito has not shown such abuse here. ¶2 After a jury trial, Yarrito was convicted of two counts of sexual conduct with a minor under the age of fifteen and one count of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. He was sentenced to concurrent and consecutive prison terms totaling twenty-six years. We affirmed his convictions and sentences on appeal. State v. Yarrito, No. 1 CA-CR 10-0205 (Ariz. App. June 30, 2011) (mem. decision). Yarrito was denied post-conviction relief in 2014 and 2017. ¶3 In December 2018, Yarrito filed another notice of and petition for post-conviction relief, arguing he had been denied a preliminary hearing. He characterized the claim as one of newly discovered evidence pursuant to Rule 32.1(e), stating he had been “unaware” that the “denial of his preliminary hearing” had been an error. The trial court summarily dismissed the petition, and this petition for review followed. ¶4 On review, Yarrito repeats his argument, again asserting the denial of a preliminary hearing violated his constitutional rights. The trial court, however, did not err in summarily dismissing Yarrito’s petition. His 1 Effective January 1, 2020, our supreme court amended the postconviction relief rules. Ariz. Sup. Ct. Order R-19-0012 (Aug. 29, 2019). The amendments apply to all cases pending on the effective date unless a court determines that “applying the rule or amendment would be infeasible or work an injustice.” Id. “Because it is neither infeasible nor works an injustice here, we cite to and apply the current version of the rules.” State v. Mendoza, 249 Ariz. 180, n.1 (App. 2020). 2 STATE v. YARRITO Decision of the Court constitutional claim cannot be raised in this untimely and successive proceeding. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.1(a), 32.2(a)(3), 32.4(b)(3)(A). And Rule 32.1(e) does not encompass newly discovered legal arguments like Yarrito raises here but is instead limited to “newly discovered material facts” that “probably would have changed the judgment or sentence.” See also State v. Serna, 167 Ariz. 373, 374 (1991) (describing five elements of cognizable newly discovered evidence claim). ¶5 Although we grant review, relief is denied. 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.