STATE v. HAMILTON

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. PAUL LAVON HAMILTON, Petitioner. No. 1 CA-CR 14-0855 PRPC FILED 11-29-2016 Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2011-126363-001 The Honorable Margaret R. Mahoney, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Diane Meloche Counsel for Respondent Paul Lavon Hamilton, Florence Petitioner STATE v. HAMILTON Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Peter B. Swann delivered the decision of the court, in which Presiding Judge Andrew W. Gould and Judge Patricia A. Orozco joined. S W A N N, Judge: ¶1 Paul Lavon Hamilton petitions for review of the summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. We grant review but deny relief. ¶2 Hamilton pled guilty to first-degree murder, kidnapping, and threatening or intimidating, and was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of release. Hamilton thereafter filed a petition for postconviction relief alleging claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and invalid waiver of rights. ¶3 In summarily dismissing the petition, the superior court issued a ruling that clearly identified, fully addressed, and correctly resolved the claims. In 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) (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 a written decision”). ¶4 Accordingly, though we grant review, we deny relief. AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court FILED: AA 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.