Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 14-0669 PRPC
10-18-2016
STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. BENJAMIN NAJERA, JR., Petitioner.
COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Diane M. Meloche Counsel for Respondent Benjamin Najera, Jr., 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. CR2005-048600-001
The Honorable Jose S. Padilla, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL
Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix
By Diane M. Meloche
Counsel for Respondent
Benjamin Najera, Jr., Florence
Petitioner
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Kent E. Cattani and Chief Judge Michael J. Brown joined.
WINTHROP, Judge:
¶1 Benjamin Najera, Jr., petitions this court for review of the summary dismissal of his third post-conviction relief proceeding. We have considered the petition for review and, for the reasons stated, grant review but deny relief.
¶2 After a jury trial, Najera was convicted of aggravated assault and sentenced to twenty-five years' imprisonment. This court affirmed Najera's conviction and sentence on appeal. State v. Najera, 1 CA-CR 06-0318, 1 CA-CR 06-0635 (Ariz. App. May 22, 2007) (mem. decision). Najera commenced two prior proceedings for post-conviction relief—one in 2007, and the other in 2011—both of which were unsuccessful.
¶3 In August 2014, Najera filed a third notice of post-conviction relief, asserting that Martinez v. Ryan, ___ U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012), constitutes a significant change in the law permitting him to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of post-conviction relief counsel. In summarily dismissing the proceeding, the trial court issued a ruling that clearly identified, fully addressed, and correctly resolved Najera's claim. Under these circumstances, we need not repeat that court's analysis here; instead, we adopt it. See State v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 274, 866 P.2d 1358, 1360 (App. 1993) (holding that, when the trial court rules "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 [the] written decision").
¶4 Accordingly, we grant review but deny relief.