State v. Gulli, 052820 AZAPP2, 2 CA-CR 2020-0001-PR
|Docket Nº:||2 CA-CR 2020-0001-PR|
|Opinion Judge:||ESPINOSA, JUDGE|
|Party Name:||The State of Arizona, Respondent, v. Ronald Paul Gulli, Petitioner.|
|Attorney:||Joel Feinman, Pima County Public Defender By Michael J. Miller, Assistant Public Defender, Tucson Counsel for Petitioner|
|Judge Panel:||Judge Espinosa authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Eppich and Judge Eckerstrom concurred.|
|Case Date:||May 28, 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Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court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. CR20122523001 The Honorable Danelle B. Liwski, Judge
Joel Feinman, Pima County Public Defender By Michael J. Miller, Assistant Public Defender, Tucson Counsel for Petitioner
Judge Espinosa authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Eppich and Judge Eckerstrom concurred.
¶1 Ronald Gulli seeks review of the trial court's ruling 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 abused its discretion. See State v. Roseberry, 237 Ariz. 507, ¶ 7 (2015). Gulli has not shown such abuse here.
¶2 After a jury trial, Gulli was convicted of twenty-six counts of sexual exploitation of a minor and two counts of sexual conduct with a minor. State v. Gulli, 242 Ariz. 18, ¶ 1 (App. 2017). The trial court sentenced him to consecutive prison terms of seventeen years for each count of sexual exploitation and twenty years for each count of sexual conduct. Id. ¶ 3. On appeal, we affirmed his convictions and sentences for sexual exploitation but vacated his convictions and sentences for sexual conduct. Id. ¶ 1.
¶3 Gulli sought post-conviction relief, arguing counsel had been ineffective for failing to seek exclusion of the "large amount" of testimony about "uncharged child pornography and legal child erotica, anime, and computer generated images" found on Gulli's computers and other electronic devices based on the risk of jury confusion and unfair prejudice. He also claimed counsel "did not adequately discuss" a plea offer from the state with him "before rejecting it in court." The trial court summarily dismissed the petition. This petition for review followed.
¶4 On review, Gulli asserts the trial court erred by dismissing his petition and asserts he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his claims. A defendant is entitled to a hearing if he presents a colorable claim for relief, that is, "he has alleged facts which, if true, would probably have changed the verdict or sentence." State v. Amaral, 239 Ariz. 217, ¶¶ 10-11 (2016). "To state a...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP