Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 13-0496 PRPC
02-12-2015
STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. JON ANTHONY SCHWEDER, Petitioner.
COUNSEL Navajo County Attorney's Office, Holbrook By Galen H. Wilkes Counsel for Respondent Jon Anthony Schweder, Florence 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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 Navajo County
No. CR 2009-0633
The Honorable Robert J. Higgins, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL
Navajo County Attorney's Office, Holbrook
By Galen H. Wilkes
Counsel for Respondent
Jon Anthony Schweder, Florence
Petitioner
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Diane M. Johnsen delivered the decision of the Court, in which Acting Presiding Judge Lawrence W. Winthrop and Judge Peter B. Swann joined.
JOHNSEN, Judge:
¶1 Jon Anthony Schweder petitions for review of the superior court's summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 32, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. We have considered his petition and, for the reasons stated below, grant review but deny relief.
¶2 A jury convicted Schweder of five counts of sexual conduct with a minor under the age of 15, each a Class 2 felony and dangerous crime against children. The superior court sentenced Schweder to five consecutive 13-year prison terms. This court affirmed the convictions and sentences on direct appeal. State v. Schweder, 1 CA-CR 11-0028, 2012 WL 952289 (Ariz. App. Mar. 20, 2012) (mem. decision).
¶3 Schweder filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief, in which he raised claims of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel; introduction of evidence obtained pursuant to an unlawful arrest; introduction of evidence obtained pursuant to unlawful search and seizure; use of perjured testimony; suppression of evidence; violation of double jeopardy; violation of Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination; lack of jurisdiction; introduction of extrinsic evidence during jury deliberations; and newly discovered evidence. The superior court summarily dismissed the petition, ruling the various claims were precluded, did not state a colorable claim for relief, or both.
¶4 We review the summary dismissal of a petition for post-conviction relief for abuse of discretion. See State v. Bennett, 213 Ariz. 562, 566, ¶ 17, 146 P.3d 63, 67 (2006). In dismissing the petition, the superior court issued a 36-page ruling that clearly identified, thoroughly addressed, and correctly resolved all of Schweder's claims. The petition for review relies on many of the same arguments Schweder made below. Because the superior court addressed those arguments correctly and at length, we need not repeat that analysis here; instead, we adopt it. See State v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 274, 866 P.2d 1358, 1360 (App. 1993) (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").
¶5 Schweder argues that the superior court's rulings on a number of the claims are contrary to the evidence. To the contrary, the record fully supports the superior court's rulings that all of the claims were either precluded or that Schweder failed to state a colorable claim for relief.
¶6 Accordingly, although we grant review, we deny relief.