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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. JOHN C. STUART, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 22-0395 PRPC FILED 2-23-2023

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2008-106594-001 The Honorable Jennifer C. Ryan-Touhill, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Faith Cheree Klepper Counsel for Respondent John C. Stuart, Eloy Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Jennifer M. Perkins, Judge Angela K. Paton, and Judge D.

Steven Williams delivered the decision of the Court.

STATE v. STUART Decision of the Court PER CURIAM: ¶1 Petitioner John C. Stuart seeks review of the superior court’s order denying his motion for DNA testing and reports, filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure (“Rule”) 32.17. This is petitioner’s second motion for post-conviction DNA testing and his fourth proceeding for post-conviction relief in the case overall.

¶2 “Petitioners must strictly comply with Rule 32,” and their neglect of its procedural requirements will lead to a finding of waiver. State v. Carriger, 143 Ariz. 142, 146 (1984). Stuart’s petition failed to comply with Rule 32.16 by not including a copy of the superior court’s ruling on his DNA motion or any facts or argument explaining why this court should grant relief on the motion. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.16(c)(2). Instead, Stuart raises unrelated and untimely arguments pertaining to prior proceedings for post-conviction relief that are not properly before this court. His failure to comply with Rule 32.16(c)(2) justifies our refusal to grant review. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.16(k) (appellate review under Rule 32.16 discretionary); see also State v. Bolton, 182 Ariz. 290, 298 (1995) (failure to offer argument sufficient for appellate review waives claim); State v. Stefanovich, 232 Ariz. 154, 158, ¶ 16 (App. 2013) (failure to “develop the argument in any meaningful way” waives claim).

¶3 For the foregoing reasons, this court denies review.

AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court FILED: AA