Case Information
*1 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.
IN THE
A RIZONA C OURT OF A PPEALS
D IVISION O NE
STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent , v.
ERNESTO ALONZO URIARTE-VELAZQUEZ, Petitioner . No. 1 CA-CR 16-0602 PRPC FILED 9-14-2017 Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2012-161699-005 The Honorable Sam J. Myers, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED COUNSEL
Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix
By Diane Meloche
Counsel for Respondent
Ernesto Alonzo Uriarte-Velazquez, Eloy
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. *2 STATE v. URIARTE-VELAZQUEZ Decision of the Court B R O W N , Judge:
¶1 Ernesto Alonzo Uriarte-Velazquez petitions this court for review from the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. We have considered the petition for review and, for the reasons stated, grant review and deny relief.
¶2 In October 2014, Uriarte-Velazquez was convicted by a jury of burglary, three counts of kidnapping, armed robbery, and three counts of aggravated assault that arose from a home invasion. This court affirmed the convictions and sentences on January 14, 2016, and issued the mandate on March 15, 2016. Uriarte-Velazquez filed a petition for post-conviction relief on June 20, 2016. The superior court dismissed the petition as untimely and held that even if it had been timely filed, Uriarte-Velazquez failed to raise any claims upon which relief could be granted. The court denied Uriarte-Velazquez's motion for reconsideration and he filed this petition for review.
¶3 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will not disturb the superior court's ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief. State v. Gutierrez , 229 Ariz. 573, 576 – 77, ¶ 19 (2012). Here, the superior court dismissed the petition for post-conviction relief in an order explaining that Uriarte-Velazquez failed to demonstrate a factual or legal basis that would excuse the untimely filing. 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 trial court's correct ruling in a written decision.” State v. Whipple , 177 Ariz. 272, 274 (App. 1993). Therefore, we adopt the court's ruling and deny relief.
2