State v. Lang

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

TANNER ANTHONY JACOB LANG, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 25-0270 PRPC
FILED 01-20-2026

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2017-002495-001
The Honorable Danielle J. Viola, Judge

REVIEW DENIED

COUNSEL

DuMond Law Firm PLLC, Phoenix
By Samantha DuMond
Counsel for Petitioner

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Faith C. Klepper
Counsel for Respondent
 STATE v. LANG
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Brian Y. Furuya delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Andrew M. Jacobs and Judge James B. Morse Jr. joined.

F U R U Y A, Judge:

¶1 Petitioner Tanner Lang (“Lang”) seeks review of the superior
court’s order summarily denying his petition for post-conviction relief. For
the following reasons, we deny review.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 In July 2017, Lang was indicted by a Maricopa County grand
jury for three counts of molestation of a child and four counts of aggravated
assault with sexual motivation. He signed a plea agreement in April 2018
and pled guilty to two counts of attempted molestation of a child and three
counts of child abuse with sexual motivation. The court held a sentencing
hearing in September 2018, where the court credited Lang 132 days for time
served and sentenced him to a presumptive term of 10 years in prison and
supervised probation for life.

¶3 Three months later, Lang filed a notice of post-conviction
relief. After extensive delay, he filed his petition for post-conviction relief
in June 2024. In his petition, Lang sought relief under Arizona Rules of
Criminal Procedure (“Rule”) 33.1(a) for ineffective assistance of counsel
and Rule 33.1(h) under a claim of actual innocence. In January 2025, the
court summarily dismissed Lang’s petition for post-conviction relief,
finding Lang did not set forth any colorable claims. After additional delay,
Lang filed a petition for review in June 2025.

DISCUSSION

¶4 Lang argues the court abused its discretion in finding there
was no colorable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, summarily
dismissing his claim of actual innocence despite the evidence, and applying
the wrong legal standard in deciding whether an evidentiary hearing was
warranted. The State argues that because Lang did not provide adequate
citations to the record, he has failed to comply with Rule 33.16. Lang
counters that his petition for review “cited and incorporated the PCR

2
 STATE v. LANG
Decision of the Court

itself . . . [and] nothing in Rule 33.16 requires a petitioner to re-cite each
exhibit already part of the record for the appellate court.” We disagree.

¶5 We have long held that a petition for review may not
“incorporate[] the . . . petition for post-conviction relief by reference . . . .”
State v. Bortz, 169 Ariz. 575, 577 (App. 1991) (citing State v. Moore, 125 Ariz.
528, 529 (App. 1980)). Further, Rule 33.16 explicitly states that a petition for
review “must not incorporate any document by reference, except [an]
appendix[,]” Ariz. R. Crim. P. 33.16(d), and the petition must include
“specific references to the record for each material fact[.]” Ariz. R. Crim. P.
33.16(c)(2). Lang’s petition for review does not meet these standards.

¶6 To support his arguments, Lang references several material
facts regarding the victims’ statements, independent eyewitnesses, and the
court’s findings. But he does not provide any citations to the record for
these facts. Rather, he provides only five record citations in his factual
background, and each citation is to his petition for post-conviction relief.
We will not incorporate his petition for post-conviction relief by reference,
Ariz. R. Crim. P. 33.16(d), and we will not search the record to supply all
the record citations. Rule 33.16(c) explicitly requires the petitioner to
provide references to the record, and asking the court to do so blurs the line
between counsel and judge, forcing us to assume the role of advocate,
which we must not do. Cf. State v. Scott, 187 Ariz. 474, 477 (App. 1996)
(“When counsel has filed an advocate’s brief on behalf of a defendant, it is
neither the role nor the duty of this court to search the record [to verify
facts]; that is the responsibility of defendant’s attorney.”).

¶7 Thus, because Lang failed to comply with Rule 33.16, we deny
review. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 33.16(k) (appellate review is discretionary).

CONCLUSION

¶8 We deny review.

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

3