Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 16-0340 PRPC
09-07-2017
STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. THOMAS LAMONT MOTON, Petitioner.
COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Diane Meloche Counsel for Respondent Thomas Lamont Moton, 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. CR2012-127763-001
The Honorable Dawn M. Bergin, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL
Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix
By Diane Meloche
Counsel for Respondent
Thomas Lamont Moton, Florence
Petitioner
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Michael J. Brown delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen and Judge Jennifer B. Campbell joined.
BROWN, Judge:
¶1 Thomas Lamont Moton petitions for review of the summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. We have considered the petition for review and, for the reasons stated, grant review but deny relief.
¶2 Moton was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder. The superior court sentenced him to natural life in prison. This court affirmed the conviction and sentence on appeal. State v. Moton, 1 CA-CR 13-0748 (Ariz. App. Dec. 30, 2014) (mem. decision).
¶3 Moton filed a timely notice of post-conviction relief. Moton elected to represent himself and filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief alleging claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, illegal sentence, and prosecutorial misconduct. Ruling that the claims of illegal sentence and prosecutorial misconduct were precluded and that Moton failed to state a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the superior court summarily dismissed the petition.
¶4 On review, Moton argues the superior court erred in summarily dismissing his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct. We review the summary dismissal of a proceeding for post-conviction relief for abuse of discretion. State v. Bennett, 213 Ariz. 562, 566, ¶ 17 (2006).
¶5 The superior court did not err in summarily dismissing the petition for post-conviction relief. The court issued a ruling that clearly identified, fully addressed, and correctly resolved the claims raised by Moton. Further, the court did so in a thorough, well-reasoned manner that will allow any future court to understand the court's ruling. Under these circumstances, "[n]o useful purpose would be served by this court
rehashing the [superior] court's correct ruling in a written decision." State v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 274 (App. 1993). We therefore adopt the court's ruling.
¶6 Accordingly, although we grant review, we deny relief.