Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2018-0119-PR
08-27-2018
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. ROOSEVELT ARTHUR WILLIAMS, Petitioner.
COUNSEL Harold L. Higgins P.C., Tucson By Harold Higgins Counsel for Petitioner
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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. 31.19(e).
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Pima County
No. CR20103630001
The Honorable Richard S. Fields, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL
Harold L. Higgins P.C., Tucson
By Harold Higgins
Counsel for Petitioner
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Eppich authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Vásquez and Judge Espinosa concurred.
EPPICH, Judge:
¶1 Petitioner Roosevelt Williams seeks review of the trial court's order denying his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. "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 (App. 2007). Williams has not sustained his burden of establishing such abuse here.
¶2 After a jury trial, Williams was convicted of two counts of second-degree murder. The trial court sentenced him to consecutive prison terms totaling forty years. This court affirmed his convictions and sentences on appeal, but vacated a portion of a criminal restitution order entered by the trial court. State v. Williams, No. 2 CA-CR 2014-0358 (Ariz. App. May 6, 2016) (mem. decision).
¶3 Williams thereafter sought post-conviction relief, arguing in his petition that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel based on trial counsel's failure to "introduce evidence of [his] proven intellectual disability," to object to other-act evidence, to object to purported prosecutorial misconduct, "to exploit the numerous failings of the police investigation," and to "investigate and present a comprehensive forensic evaluation of the crime scene." He also argued appellate counsel was ineffective in not raising the claim of prosecutorial misconduct. The trial court summarily denied relief.
¶4 On review Williams repeats his arguments and maintains the trial court abused its discretion in denying relief. We cannot say the court abused its discretion in denying Williams's petition for post-conviction relief. The court clearly identified the claims he had raised and resolved them correctly in a thorough, well-reasoned minute entry, which we adopt. See State v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 274 (App. 1993) (when trial court has correctly ruled 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").
¶5 Therefore, although we grant the petition for review, we deny relief.