FILED BY CLERK
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND
MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES.
See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24
SEP 16 2010
COURT OF APPEALS
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF ARIZONA
THE STATE OF ARIZONA,
RONNIE HURSEY, SR.,
2 CA-CR 2010-0218-PR
Not for Publication
Rule 111, Rules of
the Supreme Court
PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PINAL COUNTY
Cause No. S1100CR200602093
Honorable Janna L. Vanderpool, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
Hernandez, Scherb, & Dixon, P.C.
By Richard Scherb
Attorneys for Petitioner
B R A M M E R, Presiding Judge.
In June 2008, petitioner Ronnie Hursey, Sr. was convicted and sentenced to
an enhanced twelve-year prison term after a jury had found him guilty of aggravated
assault, a repetitive, dangerous-nature offense. After this court affirmed his conviction
and sentence on appeal, see State v. Hursey, No. 2 CA-CR 2008-0191 (memorandum
decision filed June 24, 2009), he instituted this proceeding by filing a notice of postconviction relief pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P.
In the petition that followed, Hursey asserted trial counsel had rendered
ineffective assistance by inadequately explaining the terms and benefits of a plea offer
the state had extended during trial. He claimed he rejected the offered plea because of a
“misunderstanding” about the term of probation he would have been required to serve
after he completed a 3.5-year prison term and because he was unaware that he faced up to
twelve years in prison if convicted at trial. The trial court summarily denied relief, and
this petition for review followed. Hursey contends he presented a colorable claim for
relief and was entitled to an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Rule 32.8, Ariz. R. Crim. P.
We will not disturb a denial of post-conviction relief unless the court clearly has abused
its discretion, and our review of its ruling is “„highly deferential.‟” State v. Mata, 185
Ariz. 319, 331, 916 P.2d 1035, 1047 (1996), quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.
668, 689 (1984); see also State v. Bennett, 213 Ariz. 562, ¶ 26, 146 P.3d 63, 69 (2006).
The judge who ruled on Hursey‟s post-conviction petition also had presided
over his trial, and she recalled having conducted at least two hearings in the case pursuant
to State v. Donald, 198 Ariz. 406, 10 P.3d 1193 (App. 2000), in connection with earlier
plea offers Hursey also had declined. The trial court thus drew on its own observations
and knowledge in finding Hursey “disingenuous” in claiming he had not understood the
consequences of accepting or rejecting the latest in a series of offered plea agreements
when he refused the state‟s final offer on the morning of the second day of trial.
In its detailed minute entry ruling, the trial court predicated its denial of
relief on a number of specific factual findings, none of which Hursey has disputed in his
petition for review. Because the petition for review adds nothing of substance to the
claims he advanced in his petition for post-conviction relief below, we approve and adopt
both the court‟s factual findings and its conclusion that counsel was not ineffective in
advising Hursey concerning the state‟s final plea offer. We thus find no abuse of the
court‟s discretion in denying post-conviction relief for the reasons it articulated. See
State v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 274, 866 P.2d 1358, 1360 (App. 1993) (when trial court
correctly identifies and rules on issues raised “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[‟s]
rehashing the trial court‟s correct ruling in a written decision”).
We grant the petition for review but deny relief.
/s/ J. William Brammer, Jr.
J. WILLIAM BRAMMER, JR., Presiding Judge
/s/ Joseph W. Howard
JOSEPH W. HOWARD, Chief Judge
/s/ Philip G. Espinosa
PHILIP G. ESPINOSA, Judge