Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2014-0092-PR
08-26-2014
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. MARK ANTHONY LUGO, Petitioner.
COUNSEL Barbara LaWall, Pima County Attorney By Jacob R. Lines, Deputy County Attorney, Tucson Counsel for Respondent Mark Anthony Lugo, Florence 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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. CR035437
The Honorable Javier Chon-Lopez, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL
Barbara LaWall, Pima County Attorney
By Jacob R. Lines, Deputy County Attorney, Tucson
Counsel for Respondent
Mark Anthony Lugo, Florence
In Propria Persona
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Howard authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Kelly and Judge Vásquez concurred.
HOWARD, Judge:
¶1 Following a jury trial, petitioner Mark Lugo was convicted of sexual conduct with a minor, attempted sexual conduct with a minor, sexual abuse, and child molestation. He seeks review of the trial court's orders denying relief pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P., and his motion for rehearing.
¶2 This court affirmed Lugo's convictions on appeal but remanded the case for resentencing on two of the four counts. State v. Lugo, No. 2 CA-CR 92-0561 (memorandum decision filed Jan. 31, 1994). Lugo was resentenced in August 1995. This court granted partial relief on review in Lugo's first post-conviction proceeding. State v. Lugo, No. 2 CA-CR 2007-0336-PR (memorandum decision filed Apr. 30, 2008). We denied relief on review in three subsequent proceedings. State v. Lugo, No. 2 CA-CR 2011-0283-PR (memorandum decision filed Jan. 12, 2012); State v. Lugo, No. 2 CA-CR 2011-0041-PR (memorandum decision filed May 19, 2011); State v. Lugo, No. 2 CA-CR 2009-0201-PR, ¶¶ 2-3 (memorandum decision filed Dec. 2, 2009). This is Lugo's fifth post-conviction proceeding.
¶3 The trial court identified the claims Lugo raised, reviewing them and resolving them correctly in a manner that has permitted this court to review them. See State v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 274, 866 P.2d 1358, 1360 (App. 1993). The same is true with regard to the ruling on Lugo's motion for rehearing, which the trial court denied in an eight-page minute entry addressing the merits of some of the claims that a different judge previously had found precluded under Rule 32.2. Although the court need not have addressed the merits of the claims raised, Lugo has not persuaded this court that the trial court abused its discretion. We see no purpose in restating the rulings here, rather we adopt them. Id.
¶4 We grant the petition for review but deny relief.