Case Information
*1 NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.
IN THE
A RIZONA C OURT OF A PPEALS
D IVISION O NE
STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent , v .
JESSIE LEWIS, Petitioner . No. 1 CA-CR 16-0008 PRPC Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2004-008429-001 DT The Honorable George H. Foster, Jr., Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED COUNSEL
Maricopa County Attorney’ s Office, Phoenix
By Diane M. Meloche
Counsel for Respondent
Jessie Lewis, San Luis
Petitioner
*2 MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge James P. Beene delivered the decision of the Court, in which Acting Presiding Judge Peter B. Swann and Judge Maria Elena Cruz joined.
B E E N E, Judge :
¶1 Jessie Lewis petitions for review from the summary dismissal of his fifth proceeding for post-conviction relief. We have considered the petition for review and, for the reasons stated, grant review but deny relief. ¶2 In 2004, a jury convicted Lewis of possession of narcotic drugs and possession of marijuana. The superior court sentenced him as a repetitive offender to concurrent prison terms, the longest being eight years. This court affirmed the convictions and sentences on appeal. State v. Lewis , 1 CA-CR 04-0617 (Ariz. App. Oct. 18, 2005) (mem. decision). ¶3 In 2006, Lewis commenced multiple proceedings for post- conviction relief challenging the validity of his convictions, all of which were unsuccessful.
¶4 In 2015, Lewis commenced an untimely and successive proceeding for post-conviction relief, raising claims of lack of subject matter jurisdiction and violation of his right to privacy under the Arizona Constitution. The superior court summarily dismissed the petition, ruling the superior court has subject matter jurisdiction over all felony cases and finding the claim of violation of right of privacy to be precluded. This petition for review followed.
¶5 On review, Lewis again argues that the superior court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to convict him because the police officer who stopped him never filed a traffic citation in city court or a complaint in the superior court. We review a trial court’s denial of post -conviction relief for abuse of discretion. State v. Bennett , 213 Ariz. 562, 566, ¶ 17, 146 P.3d 63, 67 (2006). As the superior court correctly ruled in summarily dismissing
the petition for post-conviction relief, Lewis was indicted on the felony drug charges by a grand jury and the superior court has subject matter jurisdiction over all felony cases. See Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 13. To the extent *3 Lewis is attempting to assert a claim of lack of personal jurisdiction, that claim, along with the claim of violation of the right of privacy, is precluded from being raised in an untimely and successive proceeding for post- conviction relief. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a), 32.4. Thus, there was no abuse of discretion by the superior court in summarily dismissing the petition for post-conviction relief. Accordingly, we grant review but deny relief.