Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2013-0517-PR
04-30-2014
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. JAMES LYLE HOISINGTON, Petitioner.
Isabel G. Garcia, Pima County Legal Defender By Robb P. Holmes, Assistant Legal Defender, Tucson Counsel for Petitioner
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 Pima County
No. CR20110072001
The Honorable Casey F. McGinley, Judge Pro Tempore
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL
Isabel G. Garcia, Pima County Legal Defender
By Robb P. Holmes, Assistant Legal Defender, Tucson
Counsel for Petitioner
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Eckerstrom authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Kelly and Judge Espinosa concurred.
ECKERSTROM, Judge:
¶1 Petitioner James Hoisington seeks review of the trial court's order denying his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. We will not disturb the court's ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion. State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390, ¶ 4, 166 P.3d 945, 948 (App. 2007). Hoisington has not sustained his burden of establishing such abuse here.
¶2 After a jury trial, Hoisington was convicted of theft and two counts of burglary. The trial court sentenced him to enhanced, concurrent, presumptive prison terms of 4.5 years each on the burglary counts and to time served on the theft conviction. This court affirmed the convictions and sentences on appeal. State v. Hoisington, No. 2 CA-CR 2012-0060 (memorandum decision filed Nov. 28, 2012).
¶3 In a separate proceeding for post-conviction relief, Hoisington argued in his petition (1) the trial court should have granted his motion for new trial counsel, (2) he had received ineffective assistance of trial counsel because counsel had stipulated to certain facts "without [his] consent," and (3) the court committed fundamental error in entering a criminal restitution order (CRO). The trial court vacated the CRO, but summarily denied relief on Hoisington's remaining claims.
¶4 On review, Hoisington essentially repeats his arguments relating to trial and appellate counsel and argues the trial court abused its discretion in rejecting his claims. We cannot, however, say the court abused its discretion in denying Hoisington's petition for post-conviction relief. The court clearly identified the
claims Hoisington raised 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").
¶5 Therefore, although we grant the petition for review, we deny relief.