Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 15-0150 PRPC
04-06-2017
STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. JEFFREY KUCZYNSKI, Petitioner.
COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Diane Meloche Counsel for Respondent Jeffrey Kuczynski, Tucson Petitioner
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2008-173996-001
The Honorable Cari A. Harrison, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL
Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix
By Diane Meloche
Counsel for Respondent
Jeffrey Kuczynski, Tucson
Petitioner
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge James P. Beene delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop joined.
BEENE, Judge:
¶1 Jeffrey Kuczynski petitions for review of the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. We have considered the petition for review and, for the reasons stated, grant review and deny relief.
¶2 A jury convicted Kuczynski of trafficking in stolen property. The superior court sentenced him as a repetitive offender to a 6.5-year prison term. This court affirmed the conviction and sentence on appeal. State v. Kuczynski, No. 1 CA-CR 11-0064, 2012 WL 5333705 (Ariz. App. Oct. 30, 2012) (mem. decision).
¶3 Kuczynski filed a timely notice of post-conviction relief. After appointed counsel notified the superior court that counsel found no colorable claims to raise, Kuczynski filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief, alleging claims of constitutional violations, judicial bias, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. The superior court dismissed the petition.
¶4 In summarily dismissing the petition, the superior court correctly ruled that Kuczynski failed to state a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and that the remaining claims were precluded, and did so in a thorough, well-reasoned manner that will allow any future court to understand the court's rulings. Under these circumstances, "[n]o useful purpose would be served by this court rehashing the trial court's correct ruling in a written decision." State v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 274 (App. 1993). We therefore adopt the superior court's ruling.
¶5 Accordingly, we grant review but deny relief.