State of Arizona v. Mark Lee Lindrud

Sep 1, 2026

2 CA-CR 2026-0109-PR

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Chief Judge Staring authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Vásquez and Vice Chief Judge Eppich concurred.

S T A R I N G, Chief Judge:

¶1 Mark Lindrud seeks review of the trial court‘s order summarily dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief filed under Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. We will not disturb that ruling unless the court abused its discretion, State v. Mendoza, 249 Ariz. 180, ¶ 1 (App. 2020), which Lindrud has not established here.

¶2 After a jury trial, Lindrud was convicted of three counts of sexual conduct with a minor and one count of sexual abuse of a minor and sentenced to consecutive and concurrent prison terms totaling 66.75 years. We affirmed his convictions and sentences on appeal. State v. Lindrud, No. 2 CA-CR 2022-0122 (Ariz. App. Oct. 26, 2023) (mem. decision).

¶3 Lindrud sought post-conviction relief, and appointed counsel filed a notice stating she had reviewed the record and, based on that review, would “not be filing a Petition for Post-Conviction Relief in this case.” Lindrud then filed a pro se petition, raising several claims of trial error, including that the trial court had erred by declining to order a mistrial and denying motions to continue. He also asserted his trial counsel had been ineffective in various ways during trial, including by failing to secure certain witnesses or present what he believed was exculpatory evidence. He additionally claimed that his sentence was improper because the court had not declared a mistrial and instead removed a juror after a “confrontational[]” voir dire and that his conviction was based on perjured testimony.

¶4 The trial court summarily dismissed the petition. It noted, first, that several of Lindrud‘s claims were precluded because they had been raised and rejected on appeal. It also rejected Lindrud‘s sentencing claim, as well as his claim of perjured testimony, noting that he had demonstrated neither that the testimony was false nor that it was material to his guilt. Finally, the court detailed and rejected his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. This petition for review followed.

¶5 On review, Lindrud summarizes some of the claims he raised below. We have reviewed those claims and conclude the trial court correctly rejected them in a thorough and well-reasoned ruling, which we therefore adopt. See State v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 273-74 (App. 1993) (permitting summary disposition when “[n]o useful purpose would be served by this court rehashing the trial court‘s correct ruling in a written decision“). He also seeks to raise several new claims, including that his trial counsel failed to adequately advise him regarding a plea offer, seek a competency evaluation under Rule 11, Ariz. R. Crim. P., or object to the evidence of “apology letters” he had written to the victim, and that his consecutive sentences were improper. We do not address claims not first raised in the trial court. See State v. Ramirez, 126 Ariz. 464, 468 (App. 1980).

¶6 We grant review but deny relief.