Opinion
2 CA-CR 2011-0363-PR
02-16-2012
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. RICHARD CHARLES TUCCIO, Petitioner.
Barbara LaWall, Pima County Attorney By Jacob R. Lines Tucson Attorneys for Respondent Richard Charles Tuccio Florence In Propria Persona
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND
MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES.
See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Not for Publication
Rule 111, Rules of
the Supreme Court
PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY
Cause No. CR20091004001
Honorable Jane L. Eikleberry, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
Barbara LaWall, Pima County Attorney By Jacob R. Lines Tucson Attorneys for Respondent
Richard Charles Tuccio Florence In Propria Persona ESPINOSA, Judge.
¶1 Following a jury trial, petitioner Richard Tuccio was convicted of kidnapping (domestic violence), sexual assault, and second-degree burglary. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent, presumptive prison terms, the longest of which is 10.5 years. We affirmed Tuccio's sentences and convictions on appeal. State v. Tuccio, No. 2 CA-CR 2009-0369 (memorandum decision filed Nov. 29, 2010). After appointed counsel notified the court he believed "no colorable claims exist[ed] to raise on [Tuccio's] behalf," Tuccio was permitted to file a pro se petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. Tuccio now seeks review of the court's denial of that petition, and its denial of his motion for rehearing. Absent a clear abuse of discretion, we will not disturb the trial court's ruling on post-conviction relief. State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390, ¶ 4, 166 P.3d 945, 948 (App. 2007). We find no such abuse here.
¶2 In his pro se petition for review, Tuccio argues, as he did below, that trial and appellate counsel were ineffective, there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions, the state failed to adequately investigate his case, and the trial judge "abuse[d] her discretion in this case." Tuccio also argues the court erred in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing before denying his petition.
We do not address issues Tuccio raised for the first time in his motion for rehearing, which the trial court correctly declined to address. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(a).
¶3 In a thorough, well-reasoned minute entry order, the trial court identified all of the claims Tuccio had raised, and resolved them correctly and in a manner permitting any court to review and determine the propriety of that order. See State v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 274, 866 P.2d 1358, 1360 (App. 1993). The court concluded correctly that the claims raised were either without merit or precluded pursuant to Rules 32.1 and 32.2. No purpose would be served by restating the court's ruling in its entirety. See Whipple, 177Ariz, at 214, 866 P.2d at 1360. Rather, we adopt the court's ruling.
¶4 Because Tuccio has not sustained his burden on review of establishing the trial court abused its discretion in denying his petition for post-conviction relief, we grant the petition for review but deny relief.
_________________
PHILIP G. ESPINOSA, Judge
CONCURRING:
_________________
GARYE L. VÁSQUEZ, Presiding Judge
________________
VIRGINIA C. KELLY, Judge