State v. Gibson ( 2016 )


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    UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.
    ERIC SHAW GIBSON, Petitioner.
    No. 1 CA-CR 14-0766 PRPC
    FILED 12-6-2016
    Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
    No. CR2010-048032-001
    The Honorable Sherry K. Stephens, Judge
    REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
    COUNSEL
    Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix
    By Lisa Marie Martin
    Counsel for Respondent
    Eric Shaw Gibson, Florence
    Petitioner
    MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen, Judge Jon W. Thompson and Judge Paul
    J. McMurdie issued the decision of the court.
    STATE v. GIBSON
    Decision of the Court
    PER CURIAM:
    ¶1             Eric Shaw Gibson petitions for review of the summary
    dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. We have considered the
    petition for review and, for the reasons stated, grant review but deny relief.
    ¶2            Following a jury trial, Gibson was convicted of two counts of
    robbery and sentenced to concurrent 11-year prison terms. This court
    affirmed the convictions and sentences on appeal. State v. Gibson, 1 CA-CR
    11-0489, 
    2013 WL 440637
     (Ariz. App. Feb. 5, 2013) (mem. decision).
    ¶3             Gibson commenced a timely proceeding for post-conviction
    relief and filed a pro se petition, in which he asserted claims of ineffective
    assistance of trial and appellate counsel. In summarily dismissing the
    petition, the superior court issued a ruling that clearly identified, fully
    addressed, and correctly resolved the claims. Under these circumstances,
    we need not repeat that court's analysis here; instead, we adopt it. See State
    v. Whipple, 
    177 Ariz. 272
    , 274 (App. 1993) (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 trial court's correct ruling in [the] written decision").
    ¶4            Accordingly, although we grant review, we deny relief.
    AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
    FILED: AA
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 1 CA-CR 14-0766-PRPC

Filed Date: 12/6/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021