State v. Manygoats, 1 CA-CR 15-0451-PRPC

Kenneth Manygoats was convicted by a jury of kidnapping, sexual abuse, and assault; one count of attempted sexual assault was acquitted. He received concurrent aggravated prison terms, the longest 17 years. Convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal.
Manygoats filed a timely Rule 32 post-conviction-relief petition raising ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims.
First claim: trial counsel failed to investigate a potential impeachment source — a booking officer who purportedly observed no scratch marks on Manygoats’ arms, contradicting an arresting officer’s report that he saw fresh scratches near the scene.
Second claim: trial counsel failed to object to the prosecutor’s voir dire questions that Manygoats contends improperly conditioned the jury.
The trial court summarily denied the petition; the appellate court granted review but denied relief, holding Manygoats abandoned/waived inadequately developed claims and failed to show an abuse of discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel’s failure to investigate and present booking-officer testimony about absence of scratches rendered representation ineffective	Manygoats: counsel should have investigated and used booking-officer testimony to impeach arresting officer’s statement about fresh scratches, which could have affected verdicts	State: Manygoats failed to develop the claim, cite record or law, and did not show how contradictory evidence would have changed the outcome	Denied — appellate court found the argument insufficiently developed, speculative, and thus abandoned/waived; no abuse of discretion shown
Whether counsel’s failure to object to prosecutor’s voir dire questions was ineffective assistance	Manygoats: counsel should have objected because prosecutor’s questions improperly conditioned the jury	State: Claim not sufficiently developed in petition; no legal support or record citations; trial court’s ruling stands	Denied — claim inadequately presented and waived; no relief on Rule 32 review

State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390, 166 P.3d 945 (App. 2007) (standard of review for Rule 32 rulings: defer to trial court absent clear abuse of discretion)
State v. Perez, 141 Ariz. 459, 687 P.2d 1214 (1984) (appellate courts will affirm trial court if result is legally correct for any reason)
State v. Cantu, 116 Ariz. 356, 569 P.2d 298 (App. 1977) (same principle of upholding correct results)
State v. McDaniel, 136 Ariz. 188, 665 P.2d 70 (1983) (ineffective assistance claims must be demonstrable, not speculative)
State v. Walton, 159 Ariz. 571, 769 P.2d 1017 (1989) (recognized in part for limits on McDaniel)
State v. Smith, 184 Ariz. 456, 910 P.2d 1 (1996) (no fundamental-error review in Rule 32 proceedings)
State v. Ramirez, 126 Ariz. 464, 616 P.2d 924 (1980) (issues not raised in trial court cannot be raised for first time on review)
State v. Wagstaff, 161 Ariz. 66, 775 P.2d 1130 (App. 1989) (same proscriptions on raising new issues on review)
State v. Bortz, 169 Ariz. 575, 821 P.2d 236 (App. 1991) (procedural bar for issues not presented below)