State v. Parise

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

NICOLA PARISE, IV, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 24-0601 PRPC
FILED 04-03-2025

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2017-001905-001
The Honorable Katherine Cooper, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Philip D. Garrow
Counsel for Respondent

Nicola Parise, IV, Eloy
Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION

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

J A C O B S, Judge:

¶1 Nicola Parise, IV petitions this Court to review the superior
court’s denial of post-conviction relief under Arizona Rule of Criminal
Procedure 32.1. We grant review but deny relief.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 After a trial in May 2021, a jury convicted Parise of ten
offenses: one count of conspiracy to commit sale or transportation of
marijuana, one count of illegally conducting an enterprise, one count of
possession of marijuana for sale, five counts of sale or transportation of
marijuana, and two counts of money laundering in the second degree. The
superior court later sentenced Parise to ten concurrent prison terms totaling
eleven years. On direct review, this Court affirmed his convictions and
sentences. See State v. Parise, 1 CA-CR 21-0333, 2022 WL 3452572, at *1 ¶ 1
(Ariz. App. Aug. 18, 2022) (mem. decision).

¶3 Parise later petitioned the superior court for post-conviction
relief, raising three claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. As a basis for
these claims, Parise alleged counsel failed to: (1) call two witnesses; (2)
move to preserve law enforcement’s video camera evidence; and (3)
adequately prepare Parise for trial. On July 3, 2024, the superior court
dismissed the petition, concluding that Parise “fail[ed] to demonstrate a
colorable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.”

¶4 Parise petitioned this Court to review the dismissal on
October 31, 2024. Although he failed to timely file his petition, we
nevertheless grant review. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.16(a)(1) (establishing a
30-day deadline after entry of the superior court’s final decision for a party
to file a petition for review); State v. Pope, 130 Ariz. 253, 255 (1981)
(explaining time limits are not jurisdictional in post-conviction relief
proceedings). We have jurisdiction. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.16; A.R.S. § 13-
4239; Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 9.

DISCUSSION

¶5 We review the superior court’s denial of post-conviction relief
for an abuse of discretion. State v. Escareno-Meraz, 232 Ariz. 586, 586 ¶ 1
(App. 2013). The petitioner bears the burden to show the court abused its
discretion by denying a petition for post-conviction relief. State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 538 ¶ 1 (App. 2011). A petition to review the denial of post-
conviction relief is limited to issues the superior court decided. See Ariz. R.

2
 STATE v. PARISE
Decision of the Court

Crim. P. 32.16(c)(2)(B). We will not consider issues the superior court did
not decide. State v. Ramirez, 126 Ariz. 464, 468 (App. 1980).

¶6 Parise petitions us to review claims he has not presented to
the superior court, including challenges to subject matter jurisdiction and
illegally obtained evidence. But even if Parise had raised his challenge to
subject matter jurisdiction before the superior court, that argument fails
because the court has jurisdiction over alleged felony crimes in Arizona,
like Parise’s case here. See Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 14(4).

¶7 Ultimately, none of Parise’s arguments relate to the superior
court’s dismissal of his ineffective assistance of counsel claims in his
petition for post-conviction relief. Because that is all he is allowed to raise
(and all we are allowed to consider), Parise has failed to meet his burden of
showing the superior court abused its discretion by dismissing his petition.

CONCLUSION

¶8 We grant review but deny relief.

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

3