State v. Silvas, 061016 AZAPP2, 2 CA-CR 2016-0072-PR

Docket Nº:2 CA-CR 2016-0072-PR
Opinion Judge:ECKERSTROM, Chief Judge
Party Name:The State of Arizona, Respondent, v. Raul Santos Silvas, Petitioner.
Attorney:Barbara LaWall, Pima County Attorney By Jacob R. Lines, Deputy County Attorney, Tucson Counsel for Respondent Raul Santos Silvas, Buckeye In Propria Persona
Judge Panel:Chief Judge Eckerstrom authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Vásquez and Judge Miller concurred.
Case Date:June 10, 2016
Court:Court of Appeals of Arizona
 
FREE EXCERPT

The State of Arizona, Respondent,

v.

Raul Santos Silvas, Petitioner.

No. 2 CA-CR 2016-0072-PR

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Second Division

June 10, 2016

Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Pima County No. CR20063683 The Honorable Richard S. Fields, Judge

Barbara LaWall, Pima County Attorney By Jacob R. Lines, Deputy County Attorney, Tucson Counsel for Respondent

Raul Santos Silvas, Buckeye In Propria Persona

Chief Judge Eckerstrom authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Vásquez and Judge Miller concurred.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

ECKERSTROM, Chief Judge

¶1 Petitioner Raul Silvas seeks review of the trial court's order dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. "We will not disturb a trial court's ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief absent a clear abuse of discretion." State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390, ¶ 4, 166 P.3d 945, 948 (App. 2007). We find no such abuse here.

¶2 After a jury trial, Silvas was convicted of two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument, aggravated robbery, armed robbery, and theft of a means of transportation. The trial court imposed a combination of presumptive and mitigated, concurrent and consecutive, prison terms totaling 23.75 years. We affirmed Silvas's convictions and sentences on appeal, State v. Silvas, No. 2 CA-CR 2008-0165 (memorandum decision filed Mar. 19, 2009), and denied relief on his petitions for review of the court's denial of relief on his first two petitions for post-conviction relief, State v. Silvas, No. 2 CA-CR 2010-0362-PR (memorandum decision filed Apr. 26, 2011), No. 2 CA-CR 2012-0384-PR (memorandum decision filed Jan. 24, 2013).

¶3 Silvas filed a successive Rule 32 petition in November 2015, asserting he had received ineffective assistance of trial and Rule 32 counsel, to wit, that trial counsel had not advised him of an eleven-year plea agreement offered by the state and that Rule 32 counsel had not raised this claim in his first post-conviction proceeding. Silvas...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP