Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2014-0127-PR
06-26-2014
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. GARY BERNARD WALFORD, Petitioner.
Gary Walford, Phoenix 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24.
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2009005660001SE
The Honorable Barbara L. Spencer, Judge Pro Tempore
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
Gary Walford, Phoenix
In Propria Persona
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Eckerstrom authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Kelly and Judge Espinosa concurred.
ECKERSTROM, Judge:
¶1 Petitioner Gary Walford 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, 166 P.3d 945, 948 (App. 2007). Walford has not sustained his burden of establishing such abuse here.
¶2 Pursuant to a plea agreement, Walford pled guilty to possession of marijuana. The trial court sentenced him to a presumptive, one-year term of imprisonment. Walford thereafter initiated a proceeding for post-conviction relief, and appointed counsel filed a notice stating she had reviewed the record and was "unable to find a tenable issue to submit to the court pursuant to Rule 32." In a pro se, supplemental petition, however, Walford asserted various claims, including that officers had unlawfully searched his vehicle, confiscated his driver's license, and forced him to go to the hospital despite his claims that he did not need medical attention. He also alleged he had received ineffective assistance of counsel because counsel had coerced him to accept a plea agreement "without first investigating the facts surrounding the case." The trial court summarily denied relief, concluding Walford's claims relating to the officers' conduct were waived by his guilty plea and he had not established a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
¶3 On review, Walford essentially repeats his ineffective assistance claims and argues the trial court abused its discretion in rejecting them. He particularly asserts that, contrary to the court's
finding, he did not request a continuance in order to seek a better plea before signing the plea in question. But the record includes a motion for a continuance in keeping with the court's description. Furthermore, the court's decision clearly identified the claims Walford raised and resolved them correctly in a thorough, well-reasoned minute entry, which we adopt. See State v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 274, 866 P.2d 1358, 1360 (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").
¶4 Therefore, although we grant the petition for review, we deny relief.