STATE OF ARIZONA v. RANDY HARPER-BURTON
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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 FILED BY CLERK MAR 29 2012 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. RANDY HARPER-BURTON, Petitioner. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 CA-CR 2011-0392-PR DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY Cause No. CR20103478001 Honorable John S. Leonardo, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED Randy Harper-Burton Douglas In Propria Persona B R A M M E R, Judge. ¶1 Petitioner Randy Harper-Burton seeks review of the trial court s order summarily dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. We will not disturb that ruling unless the court clearly has abused its discretion. See State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390, ¶ 4, 166 P.3d 945, 948 (App. 2007). ¶2 Harper-Burton pled guilty to two counts of robbery and was sentenced to concurrent, aggravated, 5.5-year prison terms. He filed a notice of post-conviction relief, and appointed counsel filed a notice stating she had reviewed the record and was unable to find any claims to raise in Rule 32 post-conviction proceedings. Harper-Burton then filed a pro se petition arguing he had been sentenced unfairly, the court improperly had relied on a statement by the then-deceased victim s daughter at sentencing, and his trial counsel had been ineffective in informing him he would receive, at most, a 4.5-year prison term, in failing to present certain mitigating evidence, and in failing to raise several errors in his presentence report. Finding Harper-Burton had failed to bring forth a colorable claim, the trial court summarily dismissed his petition. ¶3 On review, Harper-Burton repeats, without elaboration, the claims he made below. His petition for review contains only a cursory summary of the issues decided by the trial court and the reasons why the petition should be granted. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c). He does not cite relevant authority, identify any error in the court s ruling, or develop a cognizable legal argument. See State v. Bolton, 182 Ariz. 290, 298, 896 P.2d 830, 838 (1995) (insufficient argument waives claim on review); see also State v. Cornell, 179 Ariz. 314, 331, 878 P.2d 1352, 1369 (1994) (pro se defendant held to same rules as attorney). And, in any event, based on our review of Harper-Burton s petition for post-conviction relief and the court s ruling, we conclude the court correctly rejected his claims in a thorough and well-reasoned minute entry; we therefore adopt the court s ruling. See State v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 274, 866 P.2d 1358, 1360 (App. 1993) (when trial court ruled correctly on issues raised in a fashion that will allow any court in 2 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 For the reasons stated, although we grant review, we deny relief. /s/ J. William Brammer, Jr. J. WILLIAM BRAMMER, JR., Judge CONCURRING: /s/ Joseph W. Howard JOSEPH W. HOWARD, Chief Judge /s/ Peter J. Eckerstrom PETER J. ECKERSTROM, Presiding 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.
