State v. Walton

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

GEARY WAYNE WALTON, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 24-0565 PRPC
FILED 04-24-2025

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR1987-009953
The Honorable Bruce R. Cohen, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

APPEARANCES

Geary Wayne Walton, Florence
Petitioner

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Phillip D. Garrow
Counsel for Respondent
 STATE v. WALTON
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge D. Steven Williams delivered the Court’s decision in which Presiding
Judge Jennifer M. Perkins and Judge James B. Morse Jr. joined.

W I L L I A M S, Judge:

¶1 Geary Wayne Walton petitions this court to review the
superior court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief filed under
Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure (“Rule”) 32. For the reasons stated, we
grant review but deny relief.

¶2 In 1988, a jury convicted Walton of attempted sexual abuse,
public sexual indecency with a minor, sexual conduct with a minor with
one prior predicate felony, and seven counts of sexual conduct with a minor
with two prior predicate felonies. The superior court sentenced Walton to a
fifteen-year term of imprisonment for attempted sexual abuse, a
consecutive six-year term of imprisonment for public indecency with a
minor, a consecutive thirty-five year term of imprisonment for one count of
sexual conduct with a minor, and seven consecutive life sentences with a
possibility of parole after thirty-five years served (in each sentence) for the
remaining seven counts of sexual conduct with a minor.

¶3 Walton appealed. Pending that appeal, Walton petitioned for
post-conviction relief in the superior court, which the court summarily
denied. Walton then filed a petition for review, which the supreme court
consolidated with the direct appeal. This court affirmed Walton’s
convictions and sentences and granted review of his petition but denied
relief. State v. Walton, 1 CA-CR 90-1304 (Ariz. App. Sept. 10, 1991) (mem.
decision).

¶4 Since that time, Walton has sought post-conviction relief more
than two dozen times. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.3(b) (subjecting any
application or request for relief that challenges the validity of a conviction
or sentence to analysis under Rule 32). In his current petition for post-
conviction relief and petition for review, Walton claims: (1) he was
incompetent to stand trial because he suffered from an undiagnosed
traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder at the time he
committed the underlying offenses, (2) the prosecutor or some other
unidentified “government agent” engaged in unspecified misconduct that

2
 STATE v. WALTON
Decision of the Court

persuaded defense witnesses not to testify at trial, (3) his sentence violates
the constitutional prohibition against multiple punishments for the same
offense, (4) actual innocence, alleging “error relating to his identification by
witnesses” and “improper argument” by the prosecutor “related to that
identification,” and (5) ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial
attorney failed to adequately investigate his neurological health and
discover his mental impairment. 1

¶5 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will
not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief.
State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012). It is the petitioner’s burden
to show that the court abused its discretion. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz.
537, 538, ¶ 1 (App. 2011).

¶6 Walton contends that each of his claims qualifies as “newly
discovered” because his affliction with a traumatic brain injury and post-
traumatic stress disorder was previously unknown and “only presented to
the trial court in [the] current [post-conviction relief] proceedings.” To
support this proposition, Walton points to medical correspondence from
2023 and 2024 discussing “bullet fragments” that remain in his “right
frontal lobe” from a 1979 shooting and “evidence of right frontal region
encephalomalacia” reflected in “previous CT scans.”

¶7 Contrary to Walton’s contention that he presented each of
these claims for the first time in the current post-conviction relief
proceedings, the record reflects that he previously claimed: (1) he suffered
from “a head injury and post-traumatic stress disorder” that diminished his
legal culpability for his conduct, (2) prosecutorial misconduct, (3) his
sentence violates the double jeopardy clause, (4) actual innocence, and (5)
ineffective assistance of counsel predicated on a failure to investigate his
neurological impairment in previous petitions for post-conviction relief.
Any claim a petitioner raised or could have raised either on direct appeal
or in an earlier post-conviction relief proceeding is precluded under Rule
32.2(a), and none of the exceptions under Rule 32.2(b) applies here.

1 To the extent Walton also raises a claim concerning DNA testing in
his petition for review, we do not consider it because the superior court
expressly found that his “passing” reference to DNA testing in the petition
for post-conviction relief failed to present a claim for review. A petition for
review may not present issues not first presented in the superior court. State
v. Bortz, 169 Ariz. 575, 578 (App. 1991).

3
 STATE v. WALTON
Decision of the Court

¶8 Accordingly, we grant review but deny relief.

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

4