Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2013-0501-PR
03-24-2014
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. CHARITY MARIE HILL, Petitioner.
William G. Montgomery, Maricopa County Attorney By Lisa Marie Martin, Deputy County Attorney, Phoenix Counsel for Respondent Charity Hill, Goodyear In Propria Persona
THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND
MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24.
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2005012984002DT
The Honorable Margaret R. Mahoney, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL
William G. Montgomery, Maricopa County Attorney
By Lisa Marie Martin, Deputy County Attorney, Phoenix
Counsel for Respondent
Charity Hill, Goodyear
In Propria Persona
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Eckerstrom authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Kelly and Judge Espinosa concurred.
ECKERSTROM, Judge:
¶1 Petitioner Charity Hill seeks review of the trial court's order dismissing her petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. "We will not disturb a trial court's ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief absent a clear abuse of discretion." State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390, ¶ 4, 166 P.3d 945, 948 (App. 2007). Hill has not sustained her burden of establishing such abuse here.
¶2 Pursuant to a plea agreement, Hill was convicted of second-degree murder, and the trial court imposed an aggravated sentence of nineteen years' imprisonment. Hill thereafter initiated a proceeding for post-conviction relief, and appointed counsel filed a notice stating she had reviewed the record and was "unable to find a tenable issue to submit" under Rule 32.
¶3 In a supplemental pro se petition, however, Hill claimed she had received ineffective assistance of counsel; the trial court had improperly aggravated her sentence in violation of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004); her guilty plea was involuntary because she had been "under duress"; and evidence had surfaced after her guilty plea that someone else had admitted guilt. She asked that she "stay in [the] plea agreement" but "be resentenced rec[ei]ving a mitigated sentence." The trial court summarily dismissed the petition.
¶4 On review, Hill repeats her claims that she received ineffective assistance of counsel and that the trial court committed Blakely error in sentencing her to an aggravated prison term. She abandons her remaining claims, and we therefore do not address
them. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1) (petition for review shall contain "[t]he reasons why the petition should be granted" and "specific references to the record"); State v. Rodriguez, 227 Ariz. 58, n.4, 251 P.3d 1045, 1048 n.4 (App. 2010) (declining to address argument not raised in petition for review).
¶5 As to her claims presented on review, the trial court clearly identified those claims and resolved them correctly in a thorough, well-reasoned minute entry, which we adopt. See State v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 274, 866 P.2d 1358, 1360 (App. 1993) (when trial court has correctly ruled on issues raised "in a fashion that will allow any court in the future to understand the resolution[, n]o useful purpose would be served by this court rehashing the trial court's correct ruling in a written decision"). Therefore, although we grant the petition for review, we deny relief.