Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 13-0552 PRPC
02-17-2015
STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. CHRISTOPHER GEORGE THEODORE LAMAR, Petitioner.
COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Arthur G. Hazelton Counsel for Respondent Christopher George Theodore Lamar, Winslow Petitioner
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR1996-011714
The Honorable Daniel G. Martin, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix
By Arthur G. Hazelton
Counsel for Respondent
Christopher George Theodore Lamar, Winslow
Petitioner
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Donn Kessler delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge John C. Gemmill and Judge Kenton D. Jones joined. KESSLER, Judge:
¶1 Petitioner Christopher George Theodore Lamar petitions this Court for review from the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. We have considered the petition for review and, for the reasons stated, grant review and deny relief.
¶2 A jury convicted Lamar of first degree murder and kidnapping in 1999. The trial court sentenced Lamar to death for murder and twenty-one years' imprisonment for kidnapping. Our supreme court affirmed both convictions but later vacated Lamar's death sentence in a supplemental opinion and remanded for resentencing. State v. Lamar, 205 Ariz. 431, 72 P.3d 831 (2003) (affirming convictions); State v. Lamar, 210 Ariz. 571, 115 P.3d 611 (2005) (vacating death sentence). The State sought imposition of the death penalty twice on remand, but neither jury was able to reach a unanimous decision. The trial court ultimately sentenced Lamar to imprisonment for natural life for murder and we affirmed his sentence on direct appeal. State v. Lamar, 1 CA-CR 10-0550 (Ariz. App. May 24, 2011) (mem. decision). Lamar now seeks review of the summary dismissal of his first petition for post-conviction relief. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.9(c).
¶3 The petition for review presents one issue. Lamar argues that the failure to file a timely petition for post-conviction relief was not his fault because Rule 32.4(a) required the clerk of the Arizona Supreme Court to file the notice of post-conviction relief on Lamar's behalf.
Rule 32.4(a) provides in relevant part that when the supreme court affirms both the conviction and sentence in a capital case on direct appeal, the clerk of the supreme court shall file a notice of post-conviction relief with the trial court. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.4(a). As noted above, the supreme court vacated Lamar's sentence to death.
¶4 Lamar did not raise this issue or argument in the petition for post-conviction relief he filed below. A petition for review may not present issues not first presented to the trial court. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii); State v. Ramirez, 126 Ariz. 464, 467, 616 P.2d 924, 927 (App. 1980); State v. Wagstaff, 161 Ariz. 66, 71, 775 P.2d 1130, 1135 (App. 1988); State v. Bortz, 169 Ariz. 575, 577, 821 P.2d 236, 238 (App. 1991).
¶5 We grant review and deny relief.