STATE v. CLARK
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. CHRISTOPHER RAY CLARK, Petitioner. No. 1 CA-CR 16-0001 PRPC FILED 5-18-2017 Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2013-003878-001 The Honorable Danielle J. Viola, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Robert E. Prather Counsel for Respondent Christopher Ray Clark, San Luis Petitioner MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen delivered the decision of the court, in which Judge Patricia K. Norris and Chief Judge Michael J. Brown joined. STATE v. CLARK Decision of the Court J O H N S E N, Judge: ¶1 Christopher Ray Clark petitions for review of the summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. We have considered the petition for review and, for the reasons stated, grant review, but deny relief. ¶2 Clark pled guilty to sale or transportation of dangerous drugs (methamphetamine), and the superior court sentenced him in accordance with the terms of the plea agreement to a presumptive ten-year prison term. Clark filed a timely notice of post-conviction relief. After appointed counsel notified the superior court that counsel found no basis for post-conviction relief, Clark filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial vindictiveness. Ruling that Clark failed to present a colorable claim for relief, the superior court summarily dismissed the petition. This petition for review followed. ¶3 In summarily dismissing the petition, the superior court issued a ruling that clearly identified, fully addressed, and correctly resolved the claims Clark raised. Further, the court did so in a thorough, well-reasoned manner that will allow any future court to understand its ruling. Under these circumstances, "[n]o useful purpose would be served by this court rehashing the trial court's correct ruling in a written decision." State v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 274 (App. 1993). In his petition for review, Clark argues his trial counsel was ineffective by failing to properly advise him during plea negotiations, and, when those negotiations resumed on the day trial was to begin, by failing to argue that the offer the State made that day constituted vindictive prosecution. We have examined the record and agree with the superior court that neither of Clark's arguments presents a colorable claim for relief. We therefore adopt the superior court's ruling. ¶4 Accordingly, we grant review, but deny relief. AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court FILED: AA 2
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.
