Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 15-0532 PRPC
06-22-2017
STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. CARL DWIGHT DAVIS, Petitioner.
COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Diane Meloche Counsel for Respondent Carl Dwight Davis, Florence Petitioner
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2005-127207-001 DT
The Honorable Bethany G. Hicks, Judge Retired
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL
Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix
By Diane Meloche
Counsel for Respondent
Carl Dwight Davis, Florence
Petitioner
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Acting Presiding Judge Peter B. Swann delivered the decision of the court, in which Judge Maria Elena Cruz and Judge Donn Kessler joined.
SWANN, Judge:
¶1 In 2006, Carl Dwight Davis was convicted of six counts of molestation of a child and one count of sexual abuse. The superior court sentenced Davis to concurrent 28-year prison terms on the convictions for child molestation and placed him on lifetime probation for the sexual abuse conviction. We affirmed the convictions and sentences on direct appeal in State v. Davis, 1 CA-CR 06-0448, 2007 WL 5249028 (Ariz. App. Dec. 20, 2007) (mem. decision).
¶2 Davis filed multiple unsuccessful petitions for post-conviction relief. Then, in 2014, Davis filed an application for writ of habeas corpus, together with supporting documents, raising challenges to his sentences, the validity of the indictment, and the superior court's jurisdiction. The superior court treated the filings as Davis's fifth petition for post-conviction relief. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.3. The court found the claims precluded under Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2, and therefore summarily dismissed the proceeding. Davis now seeks review by this court.
¶3 We grant review but deny relief. The superior court issued a ruling that clearly identified, fully addressed, and correctly resolved the claims raised by Davis. Further, the court did so in a thorough, well-reasoned manner that will allow any future court to understand the court's rulings. In these circumstances, "[n]o useful purpose would be served by this court rehashing the trial court's correct ruling in a written decision." State v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 274 (App. 1993). We therefore adopt the superior court's ruling.