643 P.2d 1022 (Ariz.App. Div. 1 1982), 1 CA-CR 5162, State v. Scrivner
|Docket Nº:||1 CA-CR 5162-PR.|
|Citation:||643 P.2d 1022, 132 Ariz. 52|
|Opinion Judge:|| Haire|
|Party Name:||STATE of Arizona, Respondent, v. Richard Alvin SCRIVNER, Petitioner.|
|Attorney:|| Thomas E. Collins, Maricopa County Atty. by Cameron H. Holmes, Deputy County Atty., Phoenix, for respondent.  Robert L. Storrs, Phoenix, for petitioner.|
|Case Date:||February 02, 1982|
|Court:||Court of Appeals of Arizona|
Rehearing Denied March 17, 1982. Review Denied April 13, 1982.
[132 Ariz. 53] Thomas E. Collins, Maricopa County Atty. by Cameron H. Holmes, Deputy County Atty., Phoenix, for respondent.
Robert L. Storrs, Phoenix, for petitioner.
Richard Alvin Scrivner was sentenced to a term of twelve to seventeen years imprisonment following a conviction for first degree burglary in 1978. The conviction and sentence were affirmed by this court on appeal. State v. Scrivner, 125 Ariz. 508, 611 P.2d 95 (App.1979). Scrivner began these proceedings by filing a petition for post-conviction relief in propria persona with the trial court pursuant to Rule 32, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S. Thereafter appointed counsel filed a supplemental petition in petitioner's behalf. The state in its response to the petitions, pleaded that petitioner was precluded from raising the issues asserted. See Rule 32.2.d; State v. Thompson, 120 Ariz. 202, 584 P.2d 1193 (App.1978); State v. Rockerfeller, 117 Ariz. 151, 571 P.2d 297 (App.1977). The trial court then summarily denied the petitions. Rule 32.6.c. A timely motion for rehearing was likewise denied, and the matter is before this court following the filing of a timely petition for review. Rule 32.9. We will review the single issue preserved by the motion for rehearing. Rule 32.9.a; State v. Ramirez, 126 Ariz. 464, 616 P.2d 924 (App.1980); State v. Moore, 125 Ariz. 528, 611 P.2d 115 (App.1980); State v. McFord, 125 Ariz. 377, 609 P.2d 1077 (App.1980).
Petitioner alleges that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial, and cites seven reasons in support of this contention. However, we agree with the state that he is precluded from raising the issue in this proceeding.
Rule 32.2, dealing with preclusion of remedy, provides:
"Rule 32.2 Preclusion of remedy
"a. Preclusion. A petitioner will not be given relief under this rule based upon any ground:
"(3) Knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently not raised at trial, on appeal, or in any previous collateral proceeding.
"c. Inference of Waiver. The court may infer from the petitioner's failure to...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP