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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.
THOMAS LAMONT MOTON, Petitioner.
No. 1 CA-CR 16-0340 PRPC
FILED 9-7-2017
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2012-127763-001
The Honorable Dawn M. Bergin, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL
Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix
By Diane Meloche
Counsel for Respondent
Thomas Lamont Moton, Florence
Petitioner
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Michael J. Brown delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen and Judge Jennifer B. Campbell joined.
STATE v. MOTON
Decision of the Court
B R O W N, Judge:
¶1 Thomas Lamont Moton 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 Moton was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder. The
superior court sentenced him to natural life in prison. This court affirmed
the conviction and sentence on appeal. State v. Moton, 1 CA-CR 13-0748
(Ariz. App. Dec. 30, 2014) (mem. decision).
¶3 Moton filed a timely notice of post-conviction relief. Moton
elected to represent himself and filed a pro se petition for post-conviction
relief alleging claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, illegal sentence,
and prosecutorial misconduct. Ruling that the claims of illegal sentence
and prosecutorial misconduct were precluded and that Moton failed to
state a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the superior court
summarily dismissed the petition.
¶4 On review, Moton argues the superior court erred in
summarily dismissing his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and
prosecutorial misconduct. We review the summary dismissal of a
proceeding for post-conviction relief for abuse of discretion. State v.
Bennett, 213 Ariz. 562, 566, ¶ 17 (2006).
¶5 The superior court did not err in summarily dismissing the
petition for post-conviction relief. The court issued a ruling that clearly
identified, fully addressed, and correctly resolved the claims raised by
Moton. Further, the court did so in a thorough, well-reasoned manner that
will allow any future court to understand the court's ruling. Under these
circumstances, "[n]o useful purpose would be served by this court
2
STATE v. MOTON
Decision of the Court
rehashing the [superior] court's correct ruling in a written decision." State
v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 274 (App. 1993). We therefore adopt the court's
ruling.
¶6 Accordingly, although we grant review, we deny relief.
AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
FILED: AA
3