Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2017-0393-PR
05-02-2018
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. RONALD EUGENE PACK, Petitioner.
COUNSEL Harold L. Higgins P.C., Tucson By Harold Higgins 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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)(1); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.19(e).
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Pima County
No. CR20140024001
The Honorable Casey F. McGinley, Judge Pro Tempore
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL
Harold L. Higgins P.C., Tucson
By Harold Higgins
Counsel for Petitioner
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Eppich authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Vásquez and Judge Espinosa concurred.
EPPICH, Judge:
¶1 Petitioner Ronald Pack 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 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 (App. 2007). Pack has not sustained his burden of establishing such abuse here.
¶2 After a jury trial, Pack was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument and sentenced to 7.5 years' imprisonment. This court affirmed the conviction and sentence on appeal. State v. Pack, No. 2 CA-CR 2015-0220 (Ariz. App. Aug. 5, 2016) (mem. decision). Pack thereafter sought post-conviction relief, arguing in his petition that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel based on trial counsel's actions in regard to "prejudicial and irrelevant character evidence" about Pack and a subsequent request for mistrial. He also argued appellate counsel was ineffective in regard to the mistrial and alleged prosecutorial misconduct. The trial court summarily denied relief.
¶3 We cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in denying Pack's petition for post-conviction relief. The court clearly identified the claims Pack had raised and resolved them correctly in a thorough, well-reasoned minute entry, which we adopt. See State v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 274 (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").
¶4 Therefore, although we grant the petition for review, we deny relief.