 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Jaramillo11/18/2003
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court
Petitioner Wilfredo Jaramillo contests the trial court's summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P., 17 A.R.S. We review for an abuse of discretion a trial court's ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief. State v. Watton, 164 Ariz. 323, 793 P.2d 80 (1990). We find no abuse here.
In January 1996, Jaramillo entered an Alford plea of guilty except insane to a charge of sexual conduct with a minor under the age of fifteen, a dangerous crime against children. Pursuant to A.R.S. ยง 13-3994, he was committed for a presumptive ten-year term to the jurisdiction of the Psychiatric Security Review Board of the Department of Health Services. In October 1997, he filed his first notice of post-conviction relief, which was subsequently dismissed at his request.
Jaramillo filed another notice of post-conviction relief in May 2002. It is presumably the notice that is the subject of this petition for review. The trial court appointed counsel, who later filed a notice stating that he had reviewed the record and could find no claims to raise. Counsel asked the court to give Jaramillo additional time to file a pro se petition, a request the court granted. After Jaramillo sent a series of repetitive letters, the court issued a ruling stating that, because Jaramillo had not filed a Rule 32 petition, the notice of post-conviction relief was deemed to have been withdrawn.
Six weeks later, Jaramillo filed another notice of post-conviction relief and a form Rule 32 petition in which he asserted he was innocent, had changed his plea without realizing the consequences, and had been misdiagnosed. Jaramillo also asked to be conditionally released from the Arizona State Hospital. The trial court reappointed counsel for him and ordered the state to respond to his petition. Before the state could do so, Jaramillo filed a notice of appeal as well as another form Rule 32 petition. This court subsequently dismissed the appeal, and the trial court eventually dismissed the Rule 32 petition, finding Jaramillo had raised no colorable claim entitling him to post-conviction relief.
In the petition for review, counsel suggests the trial court abused its discretion in summarily dismissing Jaramillo's petition because he had not filed a supplemental petition, contending Jaramillo had sent the court a letter explaining the relief he sought. That argument addresses the court's first ruling in which it deemed Jaramillo's notice of post-conviction relief withdrawn. In the second ruling, from which the petition for review was filed, however, the court expressly ruled it had found no material issue of fact or law that would entitle Jaramillo to relief. That ruling complies with the requirements of Rule 32.6(c).
Moreover, the ruling is fully supported by the record before us and by the applicable law. Between the time Jaramillo filed his second notice of post-conviction relief in May 2002 and the April 2003 ruling that triggered the petition for review, Jaramillo filed no less than five notices of post-conviction relief and three form Rule 32 petitions. In each, his claims were essentially the same: he is innocent of the charge to which he entered a plea of guilty except insane, his mental illness has been misdiagnosed, he is the victim of medical malpractice, and he is entitled to early release from his ten-year commitment to a secure state mental health facility. Only the first claim is one cognizable under Rule 32. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.1. And, in connection with that claim, Jaramillo presented no evidence to sup
Page 1 2 Arizona Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|