State v. Moore, 1
| Decision Date | 25 March 1980 |
| Docket Number | CA-CR,No. 1,1 |
| Citation | 611 P.2d 115,125 Ariz. 528 |
| Parties | STATE of Arizona, Respondent, v. Eugene Wayne MOORE, Petitioner. 4189-PR. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
Petitioner was convicted following a trial by jury of two counts of sale of heroin in violation of A.R.S. § 36-1002.02. He was sentenced to serve concurrent terms of not less than twelve nor more than thirty years in the Arizona State Prison. He appealed to this court, which affirmed his convictions and sentences by Memorandum Decision. State v. Moore, 1 CA-CR 2363, filed August 2, 1977. He filed a petition for post-conviction relief in propria persona on May 1, 1978, alleging, inter alia, ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Counsel was appointed to represent him on the petition for post-conviction relief. Petitioner then filed an amended petition for post-conviction relief, withdrawing the original petition. In the amended petition, he claimed that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel, that a police officer testified falsely at his trial, and that he received an inappropriately disparate sentence in relation to the co-defendant's sentence. The trial court summarily denied the petition for post-conviction relief.
Petitioner filed a motion for rehearing on the trial court's denial of the petition for post-conviction relief, stating as follows:
Petitioner, by and through counsel undersigned, respectfully requests that the court grant a rehearing of its order filed on 23 March 1979 for all of the reasons asserted by Petitioner in his Petition and Amended Petition, which are hereby incorporated by reference herein.
The motion for rehearing failed, therefore, to set forth with any specificity issues relied upon by petitioner in urging rehearing, and failed to set forth with any specificity petitioner's argument. 17 A.R.S. Rules of Criminal Procedure, rule 32.9(a), provides that in a motion for rehearing an aggrieved party must set forth "(I)n detail the grounds wherein it is believed the court erred." That was not done in this case. The purpose of a motion for rehearing is two-fold: first, to afford the trial court an opportunity to correct any errors it may have made in ruling on the petition for post-conviction relief; and,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hopson v. Ryan
...State v. Bortz, 169 Ariz. 575, 577 (App. 1991). Simply incorporating an earlier pleading by reference is inappropriate. State v. Moore, 125 Ariz. 528, 529 (App. 1980). Thus, Hopson has failed to present any issue for review.(Exh. GGG.) On December 22, 2016, Petitioner also filed a "Petition......
-
State v. Bortz
...incorporated the "amended" or second petition for post-conviction relief by reference, which is inappropriate. State v. Moore, 125 Ariz. 528, 529, 611 P.2d 115, 116 (App.1980). Furthermore, this "amended" petition for post-conviction relief stated, as a basis for the motion for rehearing, n......
-
State v. Wagstaff
...made in ruling on the petition for post-conviction relief, and to frame the issues for review by this court. State v. Moore, 125 Ariz. 528, 529, 611 P.2d 115, 116 (App.1980). By failing to specify in what way the trial court has erred, petitioner did not provide the trial court with an oppo......
-
Cagle v. Ryan
...and prohibits raising an issue through incorporation of any document by reference, except for appendices."); see also State v. Moore, 125 Ariz. 528, 529, 611 P.2d 115, 116 (App. 1980) ("[Rule 32] was not written with the purpose of enabling criminal defendants, after conviction and appeal, ......