State v. Davis

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

CHRISTOPHER SHAY DAVIS, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 24-0348 PRPC
FILED 04-15-2025

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2018-001126-001
The Honorable Laura Johnson Giaquinto, Commissioner

REVIEW DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Douglas Gerlach
Counsel for Respondent

Christopher Shay Davis, San Luis
Petitioner

STATE v. DAVIS
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Vice Chief Judge Randall M. Howe delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Presiding Judge Cynthia J. Bailey and Judge Andrew M. Jacobs
joined.

H O W E, Judge:

¶1 Christopher Shay Davis petitions this Court for review from
the dismissal of his Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32 petition for post-
conviction relief. We deny review because Davis’s petition for review was
untimely and not granted an extension of time.

¶2 The superior court denied Davis’s petition for post-conviction
relief on March 4, 2024. On March 27, 2024, Davis filed a “notice of filing
petition of review” that informed solely of his intention to file a petition for
review.

¶3 On April 3, 2024, Davis moved the superior court for an
extension of time to petition this Court for review, see Ariz. R. Crim. P.
32.16(a)(4)(A), which the court summarily denied on April 12, 2024. Davis
moved for reconsideration of this denial on May 7, 2024, which the court
also denied on June 12, 2024.

¶4 Davis filed his petition for review with this Court on June 24,
2024. In his petition, Davis does not argue that the superior court abused its
discretion by denying his motions for extension of time and for
reconsideration. The State argues Davis’s petition is untimely because it
was filed 104 days after the superior court denied his petition for post-
conviction relief. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.16(a)(1). Davis again does not
discuss the timeliness issue in his reply.

¶5 A defendant may petition this Court for review of the
superior court’s denial of a petition for post-conviction relief “[n]o later
than 30 days after the entry of the trial court’s final decision on a petition or
a motion.” Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.16(a)(1). “The Arizona Rules of Criminal
Procedure, unlike the Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure, do not provide
that certain motions extend the time for filing an appeal.” State v. Limon, 229
Ariz. 22, 23 ¶ 6 (App. 2011); see also State v. Perry, 245 Ariz. 310, 312 ¶ 7 n.3
(App. 2018) (motion for reconsideration does not extend filing deadline).

2

STATE v. DAVIS
Decision of the Court

¶6 As noted, Davis’s petition for review was filed 104 days after
the superior court denied his petition for post-conviction relief, long after
the thirty-day deadline for filing a petition with this Court. See Ariz. R.
Crim. P. 32.16(a)(1). And in neither his petition nor his reply does he argue
that the superior court abused its discretion by denying his motions for
extension of time and reconsideration or otherwise explain the untimeliness
of his petition.

¶7 Accordingly, we deny review.

MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court
FILED: JR

3