Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, in which Chief Judge Michael J. Brown and Judge Patricia A. Orozco ^[1] joined.

T H U M M A, Judge:

¶1 Petitioner Jovon Pierre Peterson seeks review of the superior court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1 (2017). ^[2] Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief. State v. Gutierrez , 229 Ariz. 573, 577 ¶ 19 (2012). Finding no such error, this court grants review but denies relief. Peterson pled guilty to two counts of sale or transportation of marijuana with one prior felony conviction, a class 2 felony, in Maricopa County cause number CR2012-010271-001 and to one count of conspiracy to possess marijuana for sale in excess of four pounds, a class 2 felony in Maricopa County cause number CR2012-130234-003. The superior court sentenced him in accordance with the plea agreements to concurrent mitigated 4.5-year prison terms in CR2012-010271-001 and placed him on probation for four years in CR2012-130234-003 to commence upon his release from prison. Peterson filed a timely consolidated notice and petition for

post-conviction relief in the two cases, raising the following claims: (1) prosecutorial delay in filing charges; (2) offenses should be treated as part of a single criminal episode; (3) illegal sentence; and (4) ineffective assistance of counsel. Ruling that Peterson failed to present a colorable claim for relief, the superior court summarily dismissed the petition. In summarily dismissing the petition, the superior court issued a ruling that clearly identified, fully addressed and correctly resolved the claims he raises. Under these circumstances, this court need not repeat that court’s analysis here; instead, it is adopted. See State v. Whipple , 177 Ariz. 272, 274 (App. 1993) (holding when superior 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 [superior] court’s correct ruling in [the] written decision”). For these reasons, this court grants review but denies relief.

[1] The Honorable Patricia A. Orozco, Retired Judge of the Court of Appeals, Division One, has been authorized to sit in this matter pursuant to Article VI, Section 3 of the Arizona Constitution.

[2] Absent material revisions after the relevant dates, statutes and rules cited refer to the current version unless otherwise indicated.