NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.
UNDER ARIZ. R. SUP. CT. 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT
AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED.
IN THE
ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,
v.
GEORGE SOTO, Petitioner.
No. 1 CA-CR 12-0221 PRPC
FILED 03/11/2014
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
Nos. CR2005-011607-001; CR2005-115961-001; CR2006-006229-001;
CR2006-106964-001 & CR2007-006196-041
The Honorable Andrew G. Klein, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL
Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By E. Catherine Leisch
Counsel for Respondent
Gail Gianasi Natale, Phoenix
Counsel for Petitioner
STATE v. SOTO
Decision of the Court
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Jon W. Thompson delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Andrew W. Gould and Judge Peter B. Swann joined.
T H O M P S O N, Judge:
¶1 Petitioner George Soto seeks review of the trial court’s
summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. We review
the summary dismissal of a petition for post-conviction relief for abuse of
discretion. State v. Watton, 164 Ariz. 323, 325, 793 P.2d 80, 82 (1990)
(citations omitted). We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Rule of
Criminal Procedure 32.9(c).
¶2 Soto was indicted in five separate cases for assorted criminal
activities between December 2004 and April 2006. Soto resolved four of
the cases by guilty pleas and was found guilty of multiple charges in the
fifth case following trial. At a consolidated sentencing hearing on April
30, 2007, the trial court imposed concurrent prison terms in all five
matters, the longest being twenty-two years.
¶3 Soto’s convictions and sentences on the charges that went to
trial were affirmed on appeal. State v. Soto, 1 CA-CR 07-0447 & 1 CA-CR
07-0866 (consolidated) (Ariz. App. Mar. 17, 2009) (mem. decision). His
first Rule 32 petition for post-conviction relief filed with respect to the four
2
STATE v. SOTO
Decision of the Court
cases resolved by guilty pleas was summarily denied on December 4,
2008. Soto did not seek review of the dismissal of that Rule 32 proceeding.
¶4 On August 29, 2011, Soto filed the petition for post-
conviction relief presently before the court raising claims of newly
discovered evidence and ineffective assistance of counsel in all five cases
centered on an allegation that he had recently discovered that he suffers
from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Soto alleged that his PTSD
was the result of a gunshot wound to the head that predates the incidents
giving rises to the charges against him and that his counsel failed to raise -
- or even acknowledge -- his mental and psychological impairments. In
support of his petition, Soto submitted a medical records analysis
prepared by a psychiatric R.N.
¶5 The trial court summarily dismissed the petition based on a
finding that it failed to present colorable claims of either newly discovered
evidence or ineffective assistance of counsel. In explaining its ruling, the
trial court observed that the psychiatric R.N. drew no conclusion of how
the PTSD could have affected Soto’s cases but instead stated merely that
there is not enough information in the chart to make any conclusion about
whether his mental impairments affected his ability to cooperate with
counsel or to understand court processes. The trial court further noted
that the petition presented mere speculation on Soto’s part that but for
3
STATE v. SOTO
Decision of the Court
counsel’s failure to investigate his mental problems, the outcome would
have been different.
¶6 In his petition for review, Soto repeats the arguments made
below and argues the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing his
petition without granting an evidentiary hearing. We disagree. In a
thorough, well-reasoned minute entry, the trial court identified the claims
Soto raised and resolved them correctly and in a manner permitting this
court to review and determine the propriety of that order. See State v.
Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 274, 866 P.2d 1358, 1360 (App. 1993). The trial
court acted within its discretion in concluding that the claims raised were
not colorable. See State v. D’Ambrosio, 156 Ariz. 71, 73, 750 P.2d 14, 16
(1988) (“A decision as to whether a petition for post-conviction relief
presents a colorable claim is, to some extent, a discretionary decision for
the trial court.”) (citation omitted). No purpose would be served by
repeating the court's ruling in its entirety, and we therefore adopt it. See
Whipple, 177 Ariz. at 274, 866 P.2d at 1360.
¶7 Because Soto failed to present a colorable claim for relief, the
trial court did not abuse its discretion when it summarily dismissed his
petitioner for post-conviction relief.
¶8 We grant review and deny relief.
4
STATE v. SOTO
Decision of the Court
:gsh
5