State v. Brown
This text of State v. Brown (State v. Brown) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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 ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE
STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,
v.
RON DAMON BROWN, Petitioner.
No. 1 CA-CR 15-0585 PRPC FILED 6-8-2017
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2009-117976-001 The Honorable Lisa M. Roberts, Judge Pro Tempore
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL
Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Diane Meloche Counsel for Respondent
Ron Damon Brown, Florence Petitioner STATE v. BROWN Decision of the Court
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Margaret H. Downie delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Kenton D. Jones and Judge Donn Kessler joined.
D O W N I E, Judge:
¶1 Ron Damon Brown petitions for review from the superior court’s summary dismissal of his seventh successive notice of post- conviction relief. We grant review but deny relief.
¶2 A jury found Brown guilty of sexual abuse and two counts of sexual conduct with a minor, all dangerous crimes against children. The superior court sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment for sexual abuse, followed by two consecutive life terms for the sexual conduct counts. This Court affirmed Brown’s convictions and sentences on direct appeal. State v. Brown, 1 CA-CR 10-0428, 2011 WL 4000876 (Ariz. App. Sept. 8, 2011) (mem. decision).
¶3 Brown argues on review that the superior court erred by allowing jurors to listen to a recording of a confrontation call in the jury room “without communicating that in writing or on record with the court nor I, the defendant.” We deny relief because Brown could have raised this issue in a prior post-conviction proceeding. Any claim a defendant could have raised in an earlier post-conviction relief proceeding is precluded. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a). Furthermore, Brown offers no substantive argument and cites neither legal authority nor the record in support of his claim. He has, therefore, failed to present a colorable claim for relief.
AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court FILED: AA
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
State v. Brown, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-brown-arizctapp-2017.