State v. Ramirez, 1 CA-CR 14-0208-PRPC

Miguel Alvarado Ramirez, Sr. pled guilty to second-degree murder and received a presumptive 16-year sentence.
Ramirez filed a late first petition for post-conviction relief (PCR); the trial court denied it for untimeliness but allowed a second petition after Ramirez argued fault did not lie with him.
In the second PCR proceeding, appointed counsel found no colorable claim; Ramirez was permitted to file a supplemental petition and the State responded.
The superior court granted partial relief only — crediting Ramirez with an additional 166 days of presentence incarceration — and otherwise summarily dismissed the second PCR petition.
Ramirez moved to expand the record and sought discovery; the trial court granted the first expansion but denied further discovery motions for lack of good cause.
Ramirez sought review in the Court of Appeals, which granted review but adopted the superior court’s reasoning and denied further relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether superior court erred in summarily dismissing portions of Ramirez's second PCR petition	Ramirez argued the court wrongly dismissed claims raised in his supplemental petition	State argued the superior court correctly identified issues and properly dismissed noncolorable claims	Court adopted trial court’s thorough ruling and denied relief; no useful purpose to repeat analysis (affirmed dismissal)
Whether trial court abused discretion by denying motions to expand the record/discovery	Ramirez sought discovery/expansion to support his claims and argued good cause existed	State argued Rule 32 does not provide discovery and Ramirez failed to show good cause	Court held Rule 32 lacks built-in discovery process; trial court did not abuse discretion in finding no good cause and denying discovery
Whether Court of Appeals may consider issues not raised below in the PCR petition	Ramirez presented additional arguments in the petition for review and in his reply	State contended issues not raised below are procedurally barred	Court refused to consider issues not presented to the trial court and declined to address new issues raised in Ramirez’s reply
Whether further relief warranted after partial credit was granted	Ramirez sought broader relief beyond the 166 days credited	State pointed to the superior court’s considered ruling and limited relief granted	Court denied further relief, adopting superior court’s rulings as sufficient and correct

State v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272 (App. 1993) (appellate court may decline to restate correct, well-reasoned trial court ruling)
Canion v. Cole, 210 Ariz. 598 (2005) (Rule 32 does not itself provide discovery; trial courts have inherent authority to grant discovery in PCR on showing of good cause)
State v. Ramirez, 126 Ariz. 464 (App. 1980) (issues must be presented first to trial court before appellate review)
State v. Wagstaff, 161 Ariz. 66 (App. 1988) (procedural default where issues not raised below)
State v. Bortz, 169 Ariz. 575 (App. 1991) (same)
State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390 (App. 2007) (no review for fundamental error in PCR proceedings)
State v. Smith, 184 Ariz. 456 (1996) (no fundamental-error review in PCR)
State v. Watson, 198 Ariz. 48 (App. 2000) (appellate courts do not consider issues raised first in a reply)