STATE OF ARIZONA v. RICHARD CHARLES TUCCIO

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

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 FEB 16 2012 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. RICHARD CHARLES TUCCIO, Petitioner. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 CA-CR 2011-0363-PR DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY Cause No. CR20091004001 Honorable Jane L. Eikleberry, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED Barbara LaWall, Pima County Attorney By Jacob R. Lines Richard Charles Tuccio Tucson Attorneys for Respondent Florence In Propria Persona E S P I N O S A, Judge. ¶1 Following a jury trial, petitioner Richard Tuccio was convicted of kidnapping (domestic violence), sexual assault, and second-degree burglary. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent, presumptive prison terms, the longest of which is 10.5 years. We affirmed Tuccio s sentences and convictions on appeal. State v. Tuccio, No. 2 CA-CR 2009-0369 (memorandum decision filed Nov. 29, 2010). After appointed counsel notified the court he believed no colorable claims exist[ed] to raise on [Tuccio s] behalf, Tuccio was permitted to file a pro se petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. Tuccio now seeks review of the court s denial of that petition, and its denial of his motion for rehearing. Absent a clear abuse of discretion, we will not disturb the trial court s ruling on post-conviction relief. State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390, ¶ 4, 166 P.3d 945, 948 (App. 2007). We find no such abuse here. ¶2 In his pro se petition for review, Tuccio argues, as he did below, that trial and appellate counsel were ineffective, there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions, the state failed to adequately investigate his case, and the trial judge abuse[d] her discretion in this case. 1 Tuccio also argues the court erred in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing before denying his petition. ¶3 In a thorough, well-reasoned minute entry order, the trial court identified all of the claims Tuccio had raised, and resolved them correctly and in a manner permitting any court to review and determine the propriety of that order. See State v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 274, 866 P.2d 1358, 1360 (App. 1993). The court concluded correctly that the claims raised were either without merit or precluded pursuant to Rules 32.1 and 32.2. No 1 We do not address issues Tuccio raised for the first time in his motion for rehearing, which the trial court correctly declined to address. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(a). 2 purpose would be served by restating the court s ruling in its entirety. See Whipple, 177 Ariz. at 274, 866 P.2d at 1360. Rather, we adopt the court s ruling. ¶4 Because Tuccio has not sustained his burden on review of establishing the trial court abused its discretion in denying his petition for post-conviction relief, we grant the petition for review but deny relief. /s/ Philip G. Espinosa PHILIP G. ESPINOSA, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ Garye L. VÃ¡squez GARYE L. VÃ SQUEZ, Presiding Judge /s/ Virginia C. Kelly VIRGINIA C. KELLY, Judge 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.