No. 2 CA-CR 2017-0021-PR
Jose Ramon Mancinas-Flores, Kingman 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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)(1); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24.
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Santa Cruz County
The Honorable Thomas Fink, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
Jose Ramon Mancinas-Flores, Kingman
In Propria Persona
Presiding Judge Howard authored the decision of the Court, in which Chief Judge Eckerstrom and Judge Vásquez concurred.
HOWARD, Presiding Judge:
¶1 Jose Mancinas-Flores seeks review of the trial court's order summarily dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. For the following reasons, we grant review, but we deny relief.
¶2 Pursuant to a plea agreement, Mancinas-Flores was convicted of child molestation. The trial court sentenced him to an aggravated term of twenty years' imprisonment, the maximum sentence permitted by his plea agreement.
¶3 Mancinas-Flores filed a timely notice of post-conviction relief. After appointed counsel notified the trial court that she had completed her review of the record and could find no claims to be raised under Rule 32, Mancinas-Flores filed a pro se petition in which he alleged his twenty-year sentence was excessive and "imposed other than in accordance" with proper sentencing procedure. He referred to an earlier plea agreement that had provided for a prison term between five and ten years, and he noted that agreement had been rejected by the court as providing for an insufficient term of imprisonment.
¶4 The trial court summarily dismissed Mancinas-Flores's petition, and this petition for review followed. In it, Mancinas-Flores repeats the argument raised below and asks that his sentence be reduced in accordance with the earlier plea agreement that was rejected by the court.
¶5 We review a summary denial of post-conviction relief for an abuse of discretion. State v. Bennett, 213 Ariz. 562, ¶ 17, 146 P.3d
63, 67 (2006). We find none here. The trial court clearly identified, thoroughly addressed, and correctly resolved the merits of Mancinas-Flores's claim. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 17.4(d) and (e). Moreover, the court ruled in a manner sufficient to permit this or any other court to conduct a meaningful review. See State v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 274, 866 P.2d 1358, 1360 (App. 1993). Accordingly, no purpose would be served by repeating the court's analysis, see id., and we instead adopt it. Therefore, although review is granted, relief is denied.