State v. Arenas, 040320 AZAPP2, 2 CA-CR 2019-0245-PR
|Docket Nº:||2 CA-CR 2019-0245-PR|
|Opinion Judge:||ECKERSTROM, JUDGE|
|Party Name:||The State of Arizona, Respondent, v. Rudolph Charles Arenas, Petitioner.|
|Attorney:||Rudolph C. Arenas, Buckeye In Propria Persona|
|Judge Panel:||Judge Eckerstrom authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Eppich and Judge Espinosa concurred.|
|Case Date:||April 03, 2020|
|Court:||Court of Appeals of Arizona|
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Pima County No. CR20012407 The Honorable Joan Wagener, Judge
Rudolph C. Arenas, Buckeye In Propria Persona
Judge Eckerstrom authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Eppich and Judge Espinosa concurred.
¶1 Rudolph Arenas seeks review of the trial court's order summarily dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P.We will not disturb that order unless the court has abused its discretion. See State v. Martinez, 226 Ariz. 464, ¶ 6 (App. 2011). Arenas has not met his burden of establishing such abuse here.
¶2 After a jury trial, Arenas was convicted of second-degree murder and two counts of attempted second-degree murder. The trial court sentenced him to aggravated, consecutive prison terms totaling fifty-four years. We affirmed his convictions and sentences on appeal. State v. Arenas, No. 2 CA-CR 2002-0082 (Ariz. App. Jan. 29, 2004) (mem. decision). We also denied relief or review on the trial court's denial of three of his petitions for post-conviction relief. State v. Arenas, No. 2 CA-CR 2016-0378-PR (Ariz. App. Feb. 7, 2017) (mem. decision); State v. Arenas, No. 2 CA-CR 2015-0437-PR (Ariz. App. Apr. 20, 2016) (mem. decision); State v. Arenas, No. 2 CA-CR 2006-0313-PR (Ariz. App. Mar. 15, 2007) (mem. decision). Arenas also sought post-conviction relief, which the trial court denied, in two other proceedings in May 2014 and February 2015, but Arenas did not seek review.
¶3 In September 2019, Arenas filed his sixth petition for post-conviction relief. 2 He asserted that the prosecutor improperly commented on his Fifth Amendment right not to testify by referring to evidence as "undisputed," that his sentences for attempted second-degree murder were not "authorized by law" because the offenses should have been treated as class three felonies, and that his trial and appellate counsel were ineffective in failing to raise those issues. Arenas also argued that his claims were of "sufficient constitutional magnitude" that the rules of preclusion under Rule 32.2(a) should not apply.
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP