Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Juan Rubio Vasquez, San Luis In Propria Persona.
Judge Espinosa authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Staring and Judge Miller concurred.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES.
See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24.
¶1 Petitioner Juan Vasquez 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, 166 P.3d 945, 948 (App. 2007). Vasquez has not sustained his burden of establishing such abuse here.
¶2 After a jury trial, Vasquez was convicted of first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit armed robbery, two counts of aggravated assault, three counts of kidnapping, and one count of attempted armed robbery. The trial court sentenced him to consecutive and concurrent terms of imprisonment, the longest of which was a life sentence on the murder conviction. The convictions and sentences were affirmed on appeal. State v. Vasquez, No. 1 CA-CR 96-0643 (Ariz. App. June 24, 1997) (mem. decision). Vasquez thereafter sought and was denied post-conviction relief. Review was denied on his subsequent petition for review.
¶3 In October 2014, Vasquez initiated another proceeding for post-conviction relief, raising various claims of ineffective assistance of trial, appellate, and Rule 32 counsel and asserting his failure to previously raise the claims was through "no fault" of his own. The trial court summarily dismissed the notice of post-conviction relief, determining Vasquez's claims were untimely and precluded and that he was not entitled to effective assistance of counsel in his Rule 32 proceeding because it was not of-right.
¶4 On review, Vasquez contends the trial court erred in "stating that [he] has no constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel" and repeats his claims of ineffective assistance. But he is mistaken because the trial court correctly determined that Vasquez is not entitled to relief under Rule 32.1(f) in this proceeding, which is not of-right. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.1, 32.1(f). And, because this proceeding is untimely and successive, any claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is precluded. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a)(3). The court thoroughly and correctly addressed Vasquez's claims in its decision, and we therefore adopt it. 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 Although we grant the petition for review, relief is denied.