Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2018-0003-PR
05-07-2018
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. CHADWICK BURNS, Petitioner.
Chadwick Burns, San Luis 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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. 31.19(e).
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Pima County
No. CR20142821001
The Honorable Teresa Godoy, Judge Pro Tempore
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
Chadwick Burns, San Luis
In Propria Persona
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Eppich authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Vásquez and Judge Espinosa concurred.
EPPICH, Judge:
¶1 Chadwick Burns seeks review of the trial court's order summarily denying his petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. We will not disturb that order unless the court abused its discretion. See State v. Roseberry, 237 Ariz. 507, ¶ 7 (2015). Burns has not shown such abuse here.
¶2 After a jury trial, Burns was convicted of sale of a dangerous drug and sentenced to a 10.5-year prison term. His conviction was based on his sale, through an intermediary, of methamphetamine to an undercover police officer. We affirmed his conviction and sentence on appeal. State v. Burns, No. 2 CA-CR 2015-0278 (Ariz. App. Oct. 4, 2016) (mem. decision).
¶3 Burns sought post-conviction relief, arguing his trial counsel had been ineffective by failing to: (1) have an investigator evaluate the undercover officer's view of the transaction; (2) effectively argue a motion to inspect the officer's vehicle; (3) call Burns's codefendant as a witness; (4) adequately consult with him; and (5) request an instruction pursuant to State v. Willits, 96 Ariz. 184 (1964), and develop a defense theory based on the state's purported failure to preserve some of the buy money. He also argued that appellate counsel did not "include a due process and/or fair trial claim[]" on appeal. The trial court summarily denied relief, and this petition for review followed.
¶4 On review, Burns repeats several of his claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. We have reviewed the record and the trial court's ruling and conclude it correctly rejected those claims in its thorough and well-reasoned minute entry, which we accordingly adopt. See State v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 274 (App. 1993).
¶5 We grant review but deny relief.