Opinion
2 CA-CR 2012-0306-PR
12-19-2012
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. STEPHEN BISHOP, Petitioner.
Barbara LaWall, Pima County Attorney By Nicolette Kneup Tucson Attorneys for Respondent Stephen Bishop Buckeye In Propria Persona
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Not for Publication
Rule 111, Rules of
the Supreme Court
PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY
Cause No. CR02292
Honorable Jane L. Eikleberry, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
Barbara LaWall, Pima County Attorney
By Nicolette Kneup
Tucson
Attorneys for Respondent
Stephen Bishop
Buckeye
In Propria Persona
HOWARD, Chief Judge. ¶1 Petitioner Stephen Bishop seeks review of the trial court's order denying his successive 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). Bishop has not sustained his burden of establishing such abuse here. ¶2 After a jury trial, Bishop was convicted of five counts of armed robbery, nine counts of kidnapping, one count of aggravated assault and one count of theft. The trial court sentenced him to a combination of consecutive and concurrent prison terms totaling eighty-four years' imprisonment. This court affirmed Bishop's convictions and sentences on appeal and likewise affirmed the trial court's dismissal of Bishop's first petition for post-conviction relief. State v. Bishop, 137 Ariz. 5, 667 P.2d 1331 (App. 1983). Bishop thereafter petitioned for post-conviction relief in 1984 and in 2010. The trial court denied relief in both proceedings and this court denied relief on review. State v. Bishop, No. 2 CA-CR 2010-0316-PR, ¶¶ 1, 5 (memorandum decision filed Feb. 22, 2011). ¶3 In April 2012, Bishop initiated another proceeding for post-conviction relief, claiming in his petition that the United States Supreme Court's decisions in Lafler v. Cooper,_U.S._, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (2012) and Missouri v. Frye,_U.S._, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (2012), entitled him to relief based on his trial counsel's allegedly having failed to communicate adequately a plea offer to him. Concluding Lafler and Frye did not constitute a significant change in the law and Bishop's claims therefore were precluded, the trial court summarily denied relief. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2. The court also denied Bishop's request that counsel be appointed. ¶4 On review, Bishop contends the trial court erred in concluding his claim was precluded and in refusing to appoint counsel in this proceeding. And he raises several new claims of ineffective assistance of appellate and Rule 32 counsel. Because Bishop did not raise those claims below, we do not address them on review. See State v. Ramirez, 126 Ariz. 464, 468, 616 P.2d 924, 928 (App. 1980). ¶5 As to Bishop's other claims, the right to effective assistance of counsel in plea bargaining has long existed in this state, see State v. Donald, 198 Ariz. 406, ¶ 14, 10 P.3d 1193, 1200 (App. 2000), and we therefore agree with the trial court's conclusions. The court set forth its ruling on Bishop's claims in a thorough, well-reasoned ruling, which we adopt. See State v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 274, 866 P.2d 1358, 1360 (App. 1993) (when trial court correctly rules on issues raised "in a fashion that will allow any court in the future to understand the resolution[, n]o useful purpose would be served by this court rehashing the trial court's correct ruling in a written decision"). Thus, although we grant the petition for review, relief is denied.
A significant change in the law "'requires some transformative event, a clear break from the past.'" State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, ¶ 8, 260 P.3d 1102, 1105 (App. 2011), quoting State v. Shrum, 220 Ariz. 115, ¶ 15, 203 P.3d 1175, 1178 (2009).
--------
______________________
JOSEPH W. HOWARD, Chief Judge
CONCURRING: ______________________
PETER J. ECKERSTROM, Presiding Judge
______________________
J. WILLIAM BRAMMER, JR., Judge
A retired judge of the Arizona Court of Appeals authorized and assigned to sit as a judge on the Court of Appeals, Division Two, pursuant to Arizona Supreme Court Order filed August 15, 2012.