State v. Soto

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

HECTOR PAUL SOTO, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 23-0324 PRPC
FILED 06-27-2024

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2020-117427-001
The Honorable Jay Ryan Adleman, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Quinton S. Gregory
Counsel for Respondent

Hector Paul Soto, Eloy
Petitioner
 STATE v. SOTO
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Paul J. McMurdie delivered the Court’s decision, in which
Judge Cynthia J. Bailey and Judge Samuel A. Thumma joined.

M c M U R D I E, Judge:

¶1 Hector Paul Soto petitions this court for review from the
summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR). We have
considered the petition for review and grant review but deny relief.

¶2 A jury convicted Soto on two counts of aggravated assault,
and the trial court imposed concurrent enhanced and aggravated 14-year
prison terms. On direct appeal, this court affirmed Soto’s convictions and
sentences. State v. Soto, 1 CA-CR 21-0160, 2022 WL 973307, at *2, ¶ 6 (Ariz.
App. Mar. 31, 2022) (mem. decision). Soto initiated PCR proceedings and
the superior court appointed counsel, who found no colorable claims. Soto
then filed an untimely pro se PCR petition. Despite its untimeliness, the
court considered the petition and denied it mainly because Soto failed to
present evidence or argument supporting his claims. This petition for
review followed.

¶3 We review a denial of a Rule 32 petition based on a lack of a
colorable claim for an abuse of discretion. State v. Amaral, 239 Ariz. 217, 219,
¶ 9 (2016). Soto bears the burden of establishing such error. See State v.
Leyva, 241 Ariz. 521, 528, ¶ 24 (App. 2017) (Relief was denied because
“[petitioner] has failed to establish the trial court abused its discretion in
summarily dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief.”).

¶4 In violation of Rule 32, Soto’s petition for review presents no
argument challenging the superior court’s summary dismissal of the PCR
petition. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.16(c)(2)(D) (“A petition . . . for review must
contain . . . reasons why the appellate court should grant the petition,
including citations to supporting legal authority, if known.”). Instead, Soto
recites the court’s order denying relief, followed by assertions of general
legal principles. Soto’s lack of argument applying the law to the facts means
he does not satisfy his burden of establishing error. See State v. Carriger, 143
Ariz. 142, 146 (1984) (“Petitioners must strictly comply with Rule 32 or be

2
 STATE v. SOTO
Decision of the Court

denied relief.”); see also State v. Bolton, 182 Ariz. 290, 298 (1995) (Lack of a
sufficient argument waives the claim on review.).

¶5 We grant review but deny relief.

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

3