STATE v. PETERSON
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. JOVON PIERRE PETERSON, Petitioner. No. 1 CA-CR 15-0443 PRPC FILED 2-23-2017 Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2012-010271-001 CR2012-130234-003 The Honorable Margaret R. Mahoney, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Karen Kemper Counsel for Respondent Jovon Pierre Peterson, Kingman Petitioner STATE v. PETERSON Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, in which Chief Judge Michael J. Brown and Judge Patricia A. Orozco1 joined. T H U M M A, Judge: ¶1 Petitioner Jovon Pierre Peterson seeks review of the superior court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1 (2017).2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief. State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577 ¶ 19 (2012). Finding no such error, this court grants review but denies relief. ¶2 Peterson pled guilty to two counts of sale or transportation of marijuana with one prior felony conviction, a class 2 felony, in Maricopa County cause number CR2012-010271-001 and to one count of conspiracy to possess marijuana for sale in excess of four pounds, a class 2 felony in Maricopa County cause number CR2012-130234-003. The superior court sentenced him in accordance with the plea agreements to concurrent mitigated 4.5-year prison terms in CR2012-010271-001 and placed him on probation for four years in CR2012-130234-003 to commence upon his release from prison. ¶3 Peterson filed a timely consolidated notice and petition for post-conviction relief in the two cases, raising the following claims: (1) prosecutorial delay in filing charges; (2) offenses should be treated as part of a single criminal episode; (3) illegal sentence; and (4) ineffective assistance of counsel. Ruling that Peterson failed to present a colorable claim for relief, the superior court summarily dismissed the petition. The Honorable Patricia A. Orozco, Retired Judge of the Court of Appeals, Division One, has been authorized to sit in this matter pursuant to Article VI, Section 3 of the Arizona Constitution. 1 Absent material revisions after the relevant dates, statutes and rules cited refer to the current version unless otherwise indicated. 2 2 STATE v. PETERSON Decision of the Court ¶4 In summarily dismissing the petition, the superior court issued a ruling that clearly identified, fully addressed and correctly resolved the claims he raises. Under these circumstances, this court need not repeat that court’s analysis here; instead, it is adopted. See 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 understand the resolution [, n]o useful purpose would be served by this court rehashing the [superior] court’s correct ruling in [the] written decision”). ¶5 For these reasons, this court grants review but denies 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.
