Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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
ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION ONE
v.
COUNSEL
MEMORANDUM DECISION
M c M U R D I E, Judge:
2
STATE v. BARELA
Decision of the Court
5 Barela also argues his trial counsel was ineffective due to the
investigators failure to advise him of his rights pursuant to Miranda v.
Arizona, and the superior court should have ordered testing to determine if
Barela had a sleep disorder that caused the accident rather than his
methamphetamine use. 384 U.S. 436 (1966). We deny relief on these issues
as well because Barela did not raise them in the petition for post-conviction
relief he filed below.1 A petition for review may not present issues not first
presented to the trial court. State v. Ramirez, 126 Ariz. 464, 468 (App. 1980);
State v. Wagstaff, 161 Ariz. 66, 71 (App. 1988); State v. Bortz, 169 Ariz. 575,
57778 (App. 1991); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii). See also State v. Swoopes,
216 Ariz. 390, 403, 41 (App. 2007); State v. Smith, 184 Ariz. 456, 459 (1996)
(both holding there is no review for fundamental error in a post-conviction
relief proceeding).