Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 14-0644 PRPC
09-20-2016
STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. LORETO VALENZUELA LOPEZ, Petitioner.
APPEARANCES Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Diane Meloche Counsel for Respondent Loreto Valenzuela Lopez, Buckeye Petitioner Pro Se
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. CR2008-108965-002 DT
The Honorable James T. Blomo, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
APPEARANCES
Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix
By Diane Meloche
Counsel for Respondent
Loreto Valenzuela Lopez, Buckeye
Petitioner Pro Se
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Andrew W. Gould delivered the decision of the Court in which Judge Peter B. Swann and Judge Patricia A. Orozco joined.
GOULD, Judge:
¶1 Loreto Valenzuela Lopez petitions for review of the summary dismissal of his second post-conviction relief proceeding. We have considered the petition for review and, for the reasons stated, grant review and deny relief.
¶2 After a jury trial, Lopez was convicted of kidnapping, theft by extortion, and aggravated assault, and sentenced to concurrent and consecutive prison terms totaling twenty-one years. This court affirmed Lopez's convictions and sentences on appeal. State v. Lopez, 1 CA-CR 11-0114 (Ariz. App. July 24, 2012) (mem. decision). Lopez commenced a timely proceeding for post-conviction relief in 2012, which was summarily dismissed.
¶3 In December 2013, Lopez commenced an untimely second proceeding for post-conviction relief, stating he intended to raise a claim of actual innocence and asserting that his failure to a file pro se brief/petition for post-conviction relief was through no fault of his own. In summarily dismissing the proceeding, the superior court issued a ruling that clearly identified, fully addressed, and correctly resolved Lopez's claims. Under these circumstances, we need not repeat that court's analysis here; instead, we adopt it. See State v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 274 (App. 1993) (holding when superior court rules "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 [the] written decision").
¶4 Accordingly, although we grant review, we deny relief.