Cited by

¶12 Waiver extends to any claim for which a defendant fails to develop an argument “in any meaningful way.” ¶ 16 (App. 2013).

Such waiver extends to any claim for which the petitioner fails to develop an argument “in any meaningful way.” ¶ 16 (App. 2013); (holding the failure to offer argument sufficient for appellate review waives a claim); Ariz. R. Crim.

P. 32.16(c)(2)(B), (D); ¶ 16 (App. 2013) (finding defendant 4 STATE v. MASON Decision of the Court waived claim when he did not “develop the argument in any meaningful way” on review).

P. 32.16(c)(2)(B) (petition for review must contain “statement of issues the trial court decided[.]”); ¶ 16 (App. 2013).

¶ 16 (App. 2013) (holding the defendant waived a claim on review when he “cite[d] no relevant authority and [did] not develop the argument in any meaningful way”); Ariz. R. Crim.

P. 33.16(k) (describing appellate review as discretionary); ¶ 16 (App. 2013) (failure to cite to relevant authority and to develop the argument waives claim on review); (insufficient argument waives claim on review).

¶ 16 (App. 2013) (failure to cite to relevant authority and to develop the argument waives claim on review); (insufficient argument waives claim on review).

¶ 16 (App. 2013) (waiving claim on review where the petitioner failed to cite supporting authority and provide a meaningfully developed argument).

¶ 16 (App. 2013) (claim is waived after defendant fails to cite to relevant authority or develop argument in a meaningful way).

P. 32.16(k) (appellate review under Rule 32.16 discretionary); (failure to offer argument sufficient for appellate review waives claim); ¶ 16 (App. 2013) (failure to “develop the argument in any meaningful way” waives claim).

P. 33.16(c)(2)(B) (petition for review by this court must contain issues decided by the superior court that defendant is presenting for review); ¶ 16 (App. 2013) (failing to develop argument in meaningful way constitutes waiver).

¶ 16 (App. 2013) (holding appellant waived claim on review for insufficient argument and failure to cite supporting legal authority).

P. 33.16(k) (describing appellate review as discretionary); (insufficient argument waives claim on review); ¶ 16 (App. 2013) (failure to cite to relevant authority and to develop the argument waives claim on review).

P. 33.16(c)(2)(D) (requiring the petition for review to include developed arguments supporting the relief requested), 33.16(d) (prohibiting incorporation by reference); –84, ¶ 13 (App. 2012) (disapproving incorporating arguments by reference); ¶ 16 (App. 2013) (requiring a petition for review to cite relevant authority and meaningfully develop the supporting argument); (requiring strict compliance with procedural rules for post-conviction relief).

P. 33.16(k) (describing appellate review as discretionary); (court of appeals does not address issues raised for the first time in a petition for review); ¶ 16(App. 2013) (failure to cite to relevant authority and to develop the argument waives claim on review); (insufficient argument wives claim on review).

¶ 21 (App. 2000) (to warrant an evidentiary hearing, a Rule 32 claim “must consist of more than conclusory assertions”); ¶ 16 (App. 2013) (insufficient argument waives claim on review); ¶ 9 (App. 2000) (summarily rejecting claims not complying with rules governing form and content of petitions for review), ¶ 10 (2002).

¶6 As to his claims regarding ineffective assistance of counsel and that the superior court implicitly found he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing, he merely asserts that error occurred and, thus, ¶ 16 (App. 2013); n.9, ¶ 101 (2004).

¶ 16, (concluding that an insufficient argument waives a claim on review).

¶ 16 (App. 2013) (insufficient argument waives claim on review).

subjected to double jeopardy when an offense “is considered to be an aggravated offense because [it is] a repetitive one.” Gryger v. Burke, 334 U.S. 728, 732 (1948); accord Parke v. Raley, 506 U.S. 20, 27 (1992); -73, -82 (1980) (use of weapon as element of crime and sentencing factor did not violate double jeopardy); -81 (App. 2013).