Court of Appeals of Arizona, Second Division, Department A
Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court.
PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MOHAVE COUNTY Cause No. CR20061509 Honorable Steven F. Conn, Judge.
Matthew J. Smith, Mohave County Attorney By Gregory A. McPhillips Kingman, Attorneys for Respondent.
Sean Michael Jackson Florence In Propria Persona.
JOSEPH W. HOWARD, Chief Judge.
¶1 Pursuant to a plea agreement, petitioner Sean Jackson was convicted of molestation of a child, a dangerous crime against children. In 2007, the trial court sentenced him to the stipulated prison term of twenty-four years. Jackson filed a notice of post-conviction relief, which the court ultimately dismissed in January 2009 when no petition was forthcoming. In April 2012, Jackson filed a "Petition for Post Conviction Relief under Rule 32.1(e) of Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. 'Amended', " challenging the imposition of consecutive sentences. The court denied relief without conducting an evidentiary hearing. This petition for review followed. "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). We find no such abuse here.
¶2 In his pro se petition for review, Jackson claims that the trial court improperly imposed consecutive sentences, and that this claim constitutes newly discovered evidence. In its minute entry denying Jackson's pro se petition, the court identified and addressed the claim he had raised, resolving it correctly and in a manner permitting this court to review and determine the propriety of that order. See State v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 274, 866 P.2d 1358, 1360 (App. 1993). The court not only noted that Jackson did not receive consecutive sentences, but also adopted by reference its October 2, 2009 ruling, in which it had reiterated the history of this case and explained its reasoning for dismissing his previous Rule 32 proceeding. No purpose would be served by restating the court's rulings in their entirety. See id. Rather, we adopt both of those rulings.
¶3 Although we grant the petition for review, we deny ...