Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2014-0106-PR
09-08-2014
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. NEAL JAMES ROLF, Petitioner.
Neal J. Rolf, Douglas 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24.
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Pima County
No. CR20104214001
The Honorable Brenden J. Griffin, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
Neal J. Rolf, Douglas
In Propria Persona
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Vásquez authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Kelly and Judge Howard concurred.
VÁSQUEZ, Judge:
¶1 Petitioner Neal Rolf was charged with first-degree murder and a jury found him guilty of manslaughter. On appeal, this court affirmed his conviction and the 10.5-year prison term after appointed counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999). State v. Rolf, No. 2 CA-CR 2011-0324 (memorandum decision filed Sept. 12, 2012). Rolf now seeks review of the trial court's order summarily dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P.
¶2 After appointed counsel filed a notice avowing she had found no arguably meritorious claims to raise in this post-conviction proceeding, Rolf filed a pro se petition. He asserted a number of claims in the petition—and, by inference, in various documents attached to the petition—including the claim that his constitutional rights were violated because he was not given a preliminary hearing. He also asserted trial counsel had been ineffective in a variety of respects, including not permitting him to testify before the grand jury, advising him not to testify at trial, and failing to obtain the victim's mental health records. He also asserted fundamental error occurred during sentencing because the trial court accepted a letter regarding the victim's troubled background and had not credited his sentence with sufficient presentence incarceration. Although the court found all but the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel precluded, see Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a), it also found those claims lacked merit. The court further found none of Rolf's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were colorable, and it summarily denied relief on them as well.
¶3 "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). Rolf has not sustained that burden on review. The court appears to have attempted to distill Rolf's many claims, some of which were overlapping or insufficiently developed, into succinct categories. The court clearly and correctly resolved the claims it did identify, and we adopt its ruling with respect to those claims. See State v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 274, 866 P.2d 1358, 1360 (App. 1993) (when trial court has correctly ruled on issue "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" that analysis).
¶4 To the extent Rolf is arguing the trial court failed to identify and address other claims, including one he refers to as "ground four," which also relates to ineffective assistance of counsel, we presume the court rejected such claims when it summarily dismissed his petition. Cf. Flynn v. Cornoyer-Hedrick Architects & Planners, Inc., 160 Ariz. 187, 193, 772 P.2d 10, 16 (App. 1988) (rejecting claim court failed to consider reply because court did not specifically mention it in minute entry); State v. Everhart, 169 Ariz. 404, 407, 819 P.2d 990, 993 (App. 1991) (rejecting defendant's claim trial court erred in failing to expressly state it had considered evidence in mitigation and presuming court had considered all relevant factors before it, including evidence in mitigation). Notably, before identifying the claims Rolf had raised, the court stated in its order that it had reviewed Rolf's pro se petition, the state's response, and Rolf's pro se reply. Most importantly, Rolf has not sustained his burden of showing that he had raised a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
¶5 We grant the petition for review but deny relief.