Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2019-0050-PR
05-07-2019
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. SONNY JEAN, Petitioner.
Sonny Jean, Florence 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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. 31.19(e). Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Pima County
No. CR20142148001
The Honorable Teresa Godoy, Judge Pro Tempore
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
Sonny Jean, Florence
In Propria Persona
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Brearcliffe authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Staring and Judge Vásquez concurred. BREARCLIFFE, Judge:
¶1 Sonny Jean seeks review of the trial court's order summarily denying his petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. We will not disturb that order unless the court abused its discretion. See State v. Roseberry, 237 Ariz. 507, ¶ 7 (2015). We find no such abuse here.
¶2 Following a jury trial, Jean was convicted of two counts of aggravated assault and sentenced as a category-three repetitive offender to presumptive, concurrent prison terms of 11.25 years. We affirmed his convictions and sentences on appeal. State v. Jean, 2 CA-CR 2015-0184 (Ariz. App. May 16, 2016) (mem. decision). Jean then sought post-conviction relief, and appointed counsel notified the trial court he was unable to find any issues to raise in a Rule 32 petition. Jean filed a pro se petition, alleging claims of trial and sentencing error and ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. The court summarily denied relief. This petition for review followed.
¶3 Jean argues the trial court erred in denying his claims and asks that we vacate his convictions and grant him a new trial. We initially note that, although Jean generally argues the court erred by denying all of the claims he raised in his Rule 32 petition, he has only challenged the denial of some of those claims on review, discussed below. In the absence of any developed argument, we are compelled to deny relief on any claims of ineffective assistance of counsel that Jean has not specifically raised on review. State v. Stefanovich, 232 Ariz. 154, ¶ 16 (App. 2013) (insufficient argument waives claim on review).
To the extent Jean reasserts claims of trial and sentencing error, those claims were either raised, or should have been raised on appeal and are precluded. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a)(3). Accordingly, related arguments are relevant only in the context of the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel Jean has raised on review.
¶4 On review, Jean reurges his claim that trial counsel was ineffective by failing to challenge the trial court's use of what he characterizes as a duplicitous and constructively amended indictment as part of the jury instructions. He contends this instruction resulted in a non-unanimous jury verdict. He also maintains counsel should have requested a jury instruction on simple assault as a lesser-included offense of aggravated assault. Jean similarly contends appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise these errors on appeal.
¶5 "To state a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show both that counsel's performance fell below objectively reasonable standards and that this deficiency prejudiced the defendant." State v. Bennett, 213 Ariz. 562, ¶ 21 (2006); accord State v. Kolmann, 239 Ariz. 157, ¶ 9 (2016); see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984). In its ruling, the trial court clearly identified, addressed, and correctly resolved the claims of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel Jean raises on review, and we adopt that portion of its decision. 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").
¶6 Accordingly, although we grant the petition for review, we deny relief.