RONNIE LYNCH v. DAVID SHINN, STATE OF ARIZONA
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO RONNIE HOWELL LYNCH, Petitioner/Appellant, v. DAVID SHINN, DIRECTOR, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent/Appellee. No. 2 CA-HC 2020-0006 Filed December 22, 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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. Civ. App. P. 28(a)(1), (f). Appeal from the Superior Court in Pinal County No. S1100CV202001123 The Honorable Barbara A. Hazel, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED Ronnie Lynch, Florence In Propria Persona LYNCH v. SHINN Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Staring authored the decision of the Court, in which Chief Judge Vásquez and Judge Brearcliffe concurred. S T A R I N G, Presiding Judge: ¶1 Ronnie Lynch appeals from the trial court’s order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus. We affirm. ¶2 Lynch was convicted after a jury trial of two counts of sexual conduct with a minor and one count each of sexual abuse, kidnapping, aggravated assault, transfer of marijuana to a minor, and possession of marijuana on or near school grounds. Lynch was sentenced to a combination of concurrent and consecutive prison terms totaling eighty-two years. We affirmed his convictions and sentences on appeal. State v. Lynch, No. 1 CA-CR 99-0975 (Ariz. App. July 25, 2000) (mem. decision). He has sought and been denied post-conviction relief at least six times. ¶3 In August 2020, Lynch filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. He asserted a sentencing statute referred to in his indictment, former A.R.S. § 13-604.01,1 had been “recognized as unconstitutional” and repealed, thereby rendering his indictment improper and depriving the trial court of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court denied the petition, noting it had found “no legal basis . . . to grant the requested relief.” This appeal followed. ¶4 On appeal, Lynch repeats his claim. Generally, “[i]n Arizona, the writ of habeas corpus may be used only to review matters affecting a court’s jurisdiction.” In re Oppenheimer, 95 Ariz. 292, 297 (1964). Lynch’s petition does not entitle him to relief. His jurisdiction claim is based on his argument that the indictment was defective. But even were Lynch correct that his indictment was flawed, a deficient charging instrument does not deprive a court of subject-matter jurisdiction. See State v. Maldonado, 223 1This section was renumbered to A.R.S. § 13-705, effective January 1, 2009. 2008 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 301, § 17. 2 LYNCH v. SHINN Decision of the Court Ariz. 309, ¶ 13 (2010). The trial court did not err in concluding Lynch was not entitled to habeas relief. ¶5 We affirm the trial court’s order denying Lynch’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. 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.
