Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2015-0236-PR
10-26-2015
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. MARK LYLE BARRICKLOW, Petitioner.
Mark L. Barricklow, Buckeye 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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. 31.24.
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Pima County
No. CR20122386001
The Honorable Scott Rash, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
Mark L. Barricklow, Buckeye
In Propria Persona
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Howard authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Vásquez and Judge Kelly concurred. HOWARD, Judge:
The Hon. Virginia C. Kelly, a retired judge of this court, is called back to active duty to serve on this case pursuant to orders of this court and our supreme court.
¶1 Petitioner Mark Barricklow 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. We will not disturb that ruling unless the court clearly has abused its discretion. See State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390, ¶ 4, 166 P.3d 945, 948 (App. 2007). We find no such abuse here.
¶2 In 2012, a jury found Barricklow guilty of disorderly conduct and attempted aggravated assault with a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument, both dangerous offenses. The trial court sentenced Barricklow to concurrent prison terms, the longer of which is twelve years, with credit for 180 days served. We affirmed Barricklow's convictions and sentences on appeal. State v. Barricklow, No. 2 CA-CR 2012-0515 (memorandum decision filed Oct. 29, 2013). In 2014, Barricklow filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief, arguing his sentences were illegal, and trial and appellate counsel were ineffective. The trial court dismissed his petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing, concluding Barricklow had failed "to present a colorable claim for relief and that no purpose would be served by any further proceedings." This petition for review followed.
¶3 On review, Barricklow reasserts some of the arguments he raised in his petition below and asks "[t]his Court to review the Rule 32, [its] arguments, discussion of the issues and the documents that [Barricklow] submitted to the trial court in the 40 exhibits." He maintains "[i]t would be cumulative and unnecessary for [him] to reargue the entire argu[]ment and to [] reexhibit [sic] all of the evidence that [he] put into his Rule 32," and essentially asks us to examine the 379 pages of exhibits attached to his petition below to determine "how [he] was denied[] a fair trial."
Although Barricklow refers to forty exhibits, the record appears to contain thirty-eight. --------
¶4 Notably, Barricklow does not explain how the trial court erred in rejecting his claims, but instead uses his petition for review to reargue generally the claims he raised below. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1)(iv) (petition for review shall contain "reasons why the petition should be granted"). And, to the extent Barricklow attempts to challenge the court's finding that his claims "essentially express dissatisfaction with the trial strategy employed by trial counsel," we determine the court correctly rejected his arguments for this reason. See State v. Beaty, 158 Ariz. 232, 250, 762 P.2d 519, 537 (1988) ("Matters of trial strategy and tactics are committed to defense counsel's judgment" and cannot serve as basis for claim of ineffective assistance).
¶5 In any event, we find no error in the trial court's ruling. We therefore adopt the court's thorough analysis. See State v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 274, 866 P.2d 1358, 1360 (App. 1993) (when court correctly rules 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, we grant review but deny relief.