State v. Dickinson ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                      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    UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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
    ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
    DIVISION ONE
    STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,
    v.
    ZANE SCOTT DICKINSON, Petitioner.
    No. 1 CA-CR 15-0703 PRPC
    FILED 10-5-2017
    Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Mohave County
    No. CR2011-00757
    The Honorable Steven F. Conn, Judge, Retired
    REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
    COUNSEL
    Mohave County Attorney’s Office, Kingman
    By Matthew J. Smith
    Counsel for Respondent
    Zane Scott Dickinson, Tucson
    Petitioner
    STATE v. DICKINSON
    Decision of the Court
    MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Judge Jennifer B. Campbell delivered the decision of the Court, in which
    Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown and Judge Margaret H. Downie joined.
    C A M P B E L L, Judge:
    ¶1           Zane Scott Dickinson petitions for review of the summary
    dismissal of his second notice of post-conviction relief. We have
    considered the petition for review and grant review, but deny relief.
    ¶2           A jury convicted Dickinson of attempted second degree
    murder, two counts of aggravated assault, and leaving the scene of an
    accident involving death or injury. The trial court sentenced him to
    concurrent and consecutive prison terms totaling fourteen years. This
    court affirmed the convictions and sentences on appeal. State v. Dickinson,
    1 CA-CR 12-0479 (Ariz. App. Dec. 17, 2013) (mem. decision).
    ¶3              Dickinson filed a timely notice of post-conviction relief
    pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32, and appointed counsel filed a
    petition for post-conviction relief alleging claims of ineffective assistance
    of trial counsel. Ruling that Dickinson failed to state a colorable claim for
    relief, the trial court summarily dismissed the petition.
    ¶4             Dickinson thereafter filed a second notice of post-conviction
    relief, indicating his intent to raise a claim of ineffective assistance by his
    first Rule 32 counsel. Ruling that a claim of ineffective assistance of Rule
    32 counsel by a non-pleading defendant is not cognizable under Arizona
    law, see State v. Escareno-Meraz, 
    232 Ariz. 586
    , 587, ¶ 4 (App. 2013), the trial
    court summarily dismissed the notice. This petition for review followed.
    ¶5            In summarily dismissing the notice, the trial court issued a
    ruling that clearly identified, fully addressed, and correctly resolved the
    claim raised by Dickinson. Further, the trial court did so in a thorough,
    well-reasoned manner that will allow any future court to understand the
    court’s rulings. 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). We therefore
    adopt the trial court’s ruling.
    2
    STATE v. DICKINSON
    Decision of the Court
    ¶6   Accordingly, we grant review, but deny relief.
    AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
    FILED: AA
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 1 CA-CR 15-0703-PRPC

Filed Date: 10/5/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/5/2017