State v. Stuart

NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL
AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE
ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

v.

JOHN C. STUART, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 22-0395 PRPC
FILED 2-23-2023

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2008-106594-001
The Honorable Jennifer C. Ryan-Touhill, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Faith Cheree Klepper
Counsel for Respondent

John C. Stuart, Eloy
Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Jennifer M. Perkins, Judge Angela K. Paton, and Judge D.
Steven Williams delivered the decision of the Court.
 STATE v. STUART
Decision of the Court

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner John C. Stuart seeks review of the superior court’s
order denying his motion for DNA testing and reports, filed pursuant to
Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure (“Rule”) 32.17. This is petitioner’s
second motion for post-conviction DNA testing and his fourth proceeding
for post-conviction relief in the case overall.

¶2 “Petitioners must strictly comply with Rule 32,” and their
neglect of its procedural requirements will lead to a finding of waiver. State
v. Carriger, 143 Ariz. 142, 146 (1984). Stuart’s petition failed to comply with
Rule 32.16 by not including a copy of the superior court’s ruling on his DNA
motion or any facts or argument explaining why this court should grant
relief on the motion. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.16(c)(2). Instead, Stuart raises
unrelated and untimely arguments pertaining to prior proceedings for
post-conviction relief that are not properly before this court. His failure to
comply with Rule 32.16(c)(2) justifies our refusal to grant review. See Ariz.
R. Crim. P. 32.16(k) (appellate review under Rule 32.16 discretionary); see
also State v. Bolton, 182 Ariz. 290, 298 (1995) (failure to offer argument
sufficient for appellate review waives claim); State v. Stefanovich, 232 Ariz.
154, 158, ¶ 16 (App. 2013) (failure to “develop the argument in any
meaningful way” waives claim).

¶3 For the foregoing reasons, this court denies review.

AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
FILED: AA

2