State v. Roque

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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.

FRANK SILVA ROQUE, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 16-0104 PRPC

FILED 8-3-2017

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR 2001-095385

The Honorable Christopher A. Coury, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Diane Meloche

Counsel for Respondent

Frank Silva Roque, Buckeye

Petitioner STATE v. ROQUE

Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Kenton D. Jones delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Margaret H. Downie and Judge Donn Kessler1 joined.

J O N E S, Judge:

¶1 Frank Roque petitions this Court for review from the dismissal of his untimely and successive petition for post-conviction relief. We have considered the petition for review and, for the reasons stated, grant review and deny relief.

¶2 The factual and procedural history has been set forth by this Court on more than one occasion and need not be repeated here. See State v. Roque, 2 CA-CR 2016-0224-PR, 2016 WL 4098665, at *1, ¶ 2 (Ariz. App. July 29, 2016) (mem. decision); State v. Roque, 1 CA-CR 13-0705 PRPC, 2015 WL 917820, at *1, ¶ 2 (Ariz. App. Mar. 3, 2015) (mem. decision).

¶3 Roque commenced the present post-conviction relief proceeding in October 2015. He alleged ineffective assistance of counsel, a significant change in the law, and newly discovered evidence. He also asserted violations of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 478-79 (1966), and the marital privilege rule. Finally, he argued the trial court erroneously admitted evidence of an invalid prior conviction. The court summarily dismissed his notice of post-conviction relief, and this petition for review followed. We review a summary denial of petition for post-conviction relief for an abuse of discretion. State v. Bennett, 213 Ariz. 562, 566, ¶ 17 (2006) (citation omitted).

¶4 We find no abuse of discretion here. The trial court dismissed Roque’s post-conviction relief proceeding in an order that clearly identified and correctly ruled upon the issues raised. Furthermore, the 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 [C]ourt rehashing the trial court’s correct

STATE v. ROQUE

Decision of the Court ruling in a written decision.” State v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 274 (App. 1993). Therefore, we adopt the trial court’s ruling.

¶5 We grant review and deny relief.

AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court FILED: AA