STATE v. KOSTEROW
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. RICK KOSTEROW, Petitioner. No. 1 CA-CR 14-0708 PRPC FILED 1-17-2017 Appeal from the Superior Court in Yuma County No. S1400CR200600688 The Honorable Lisa W. Bleich, Commissioner REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED COUNSEL Yuma County Attorney’s Office, Yuma By Charles V. S. Platt Counsel for Respondent Law Office of Terri L. Capozzi, Yuma By Terri L. Capozzi Counsel for Petitioner STATE v. KOSTEROW Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Donn Kessler delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Kenton D. Jones and Judge Randall M. Howe joined. K E S S L E R, Judge: ¶1 Petitioner Rick Kosterow seeks review of the superior court’s order dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. We review the superior court’s denial of post-conviction relief for abuse of discretion. State v. Bennett, 213 Ariz. 562, 566, ¶ 17 (2006) (citation omitted). Finding no such abuse of discretion, we grant review but deny relief. ¶2 A jury found Kosterow guilty of first degree premeditated murder, conspiracy to commit first degree murder, and first degree felony murder. The superior court imposed three concurrent life sentences. This court affirmed the convictions and sentences on appeal. State v. Kosterow, 1 CA-CR 08-0150, 2009 WL 1710279, at *8, ¶ 32 (Ariz. App. June 18, 2009) (mem. decision). ¶3 Kosterow filed an untimely petition for post-conviction relief raising claims of police malfeasance, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. The superior court granted relief on the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel involving the failure to challenge the validity of two murder convictions and sentences for the death of one person and vacated the conviction and sentence for first degree felony murder. The superior court further ruled that all the remaining claims were procedurally precluded and ordered the petition dismissed. ¶4 We review a ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief for abuse of discretion. Bennett, 213 Ariz. at 566, ¶ 17 (citation omitted). In granting relief on one claim and summarily dismissing the balance of the petition, the superior court issued a ruling that clearly identified, fully addressed, and correctly resolved the claims raised. Under these circumstances, we need not repeat that court’s analysis here; instead, we adopt it. State v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 274 (App. 1993) (holding when superior court rules “in a fashion that will allow any court in the future to 2 STATE v. KOSTEROW Decision of the Court understand the resolution[, n]o useful purpose would be served by this court rehashing the trial court’s correct ruling in [the] written decision.”). ¶5 Accordingly, although we grant review, we deny relief. AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court FILED: AA 3
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.
