State v. Muhammad

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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. RIKI RASHAAD MUHAMMAD, Petitioner. No. 1 CA-CR 14-0776 PRPC FILED 12-20-2016 Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR1995-003442 The Honorable David B. Gass, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Diane Meloche Counsel for Respondent Riki Rashaad Muhammad, Winslow Petitioner STATE v. MUHAMMAD Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Kent E. Cattani and Chief Judge Michael J. Brown joined. W I N T H R O P, Judge: ¶1 Riki Rashaad Muhammad, formerly known as Richard Warren Miller, petitions for review of the summary dismissal of his third post-conviction relief proceeding. We have considered the petition for review and, for the reasons stated, grant review but deny relief. ¶2 A jury convicted Muhammad of murder in the first degree and two counts of child abuse, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment and two consecutive seventeen-year prison terms. This court affirmed the convictions on appeal, but remanded for resentencing. State v. Miller, 1 CA- CR 97-0113 (Ariz. App. Jan. 27, 1998) (mem. decision). On remand, the superior court imposed the same sentences, and the sentences were affirmed on appeal. State v. Muhammad, 1 CA-CR 99-0866 (Ariz. App. Aug. 29, 2000) (mem. decision). ¶3 The superior court dismissed Muhammad’s first petition for post-conviction relief in 2003. In 2013, Muhammad filed an untimely and successive notice of post-conviction relief, which was likewise summarily dismissed. In 2014, Muhammad filed another untimely and successive notice and petition for post-conviction relief, in which he sought to raise claims of newly discovered material facts and a significant change in the law. Finding Muhammad failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted in an untimely and successive post-conviction relief proceeding, the superior court summarily dismissed the notice and petition. This petition for review followed. ¶4 In summarily dismissing the notice and 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, 866 P.2d 1358, 1360 (App. 1993) (holding that when the 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”). 2 STATE v. MUHAMMAD Decision of the Court ¶5 Accordingly, although we grant review, we deny relief. AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court FILED: AA 3