Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2018-0350-PR
02-22-2019
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. DONALD JAMES STUTLER, Petitioner.
COUNSEL James Fullin, Pima County Legal Defender By Jeffrey Kautenburger, Assistant Legal Defender, Tucson 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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. CR20140818001
The Honorable Renee T. Bennett, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL
James Fullin, Pima County Legal Defender
By Jeffrey Kautenburger, Assistant Legal Defender, Tucson
Counsel for Petitioner
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Vásquez authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Staring and Judge Brearcliffe concurred.
VÁSQUEZ, Judge:
¶1 Petitioner Donald Stutler 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). Stutler has not sustained his burden of establishing such abuse here.
¶2 After a jury trial, Stutler was convicted of aggravated assault and sentenced to a one-year prison term. We affirmed his conviction and sentence on appeal. State v. Stutler, No. 2 CA-CR 2015-0110 (Ariz. App. Feb. 4, 2016) (mem. decision). His conviction stems from an altercation with his child's mother during which he placed his hand over her nose and mouth and squeezed her throat with his other hand, causing her to be unable to breath.
¶3 Stutler sought and was denied post-conviction relief, but this court granted review and relief in part. State v. Stutler, No. 2 CA-CR 2017-0234-PR (Ariz. App. Jan. 25, 2018) (mem. decision). We concluded he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his claim that counsel had been ineffective in "'overcoming his will' to testify." Id. ¶¶ 3, 7. After the evidentiary hearing on remand, the trial court denied relief, finding that counsel "did not tell [Stutler] he could not testify" and that counsel's performance in preparing Stutler to testify and advising him not to testify did not fall below objectively reasonable standards.
¶4 On review, Stutler argues the trial court "misconstrued the interplay" of his right to testify and his "right to effective assistance of trial counsel." Our review of the court's factual findings "is limited to a determination of whether those findings are clearly erroneous"; we "view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the lower court's ruling, and we must resolve all reasonable inferences against the defendant." State v. Sasak, 178 Ariz. 182, 186 (App. 1993). When "the trial court's ruling is based on substantial evidence, this court will affirm." Id. And, "[e]vidence
is not insubstantial merely because testimony is conflicting or reasonable persons may draw different conclusions from the evidence." Id.; see also State v. Fritz, 157 Ariz. 139, 141 (App. 1988) (trial court sole arbiter of witness credibility in post-conviction proceeding).
¶5 In this case, as Stutler notes, the trial court cited State v. Martin, 102 Ariz. 142 (1967), and State v. Tillery, 107 Ariz. 34 (1971), in its decision as a "framework for analysis." But it also clearly set forth the standard for addressing a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel pursuant to Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), and analyzed Stutler's claims under that standard. We cannot agree with Stutler that the court "misconstrued" the law in its decision.
¶6 The remainder of Stutler's argument amounts to a request for this court to reweigh the evidence as to the adequacy of counsel's performance. But the trial court was "the sole arbit[er] of the credibility of witnesses" at the evidentiary hearing, Fritz, 157 Ariz. at 141, and the court's factual determinations were supported by evidence presented at the hearing. The court clearly identified Stutler's claims 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").
¶7 Therefore, although we grant the petition for review, we deny relief.