STATE OF ARIZONA v. GEORGE YSIDRO SPERLE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED BY CLERK NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND M AY 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 -6 2009 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. GEORGE YSIDRO SPERLE, Petitioner. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 CA-CR 2008-0358-PR DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF COCHISE COUNTY Cause No. CR200500146 Honorable Wallace R. Hoggatt, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED Edward G. Rheinheimer, Cochise County Attorney By Wesley D. Jensen Law Offices DiCampli, Elsberry & Hunley, LLC By Anne Elsberry H O W A R D, Presiding Judge. Bisbee Attorneys for Respondent Tucson Attorneys for Petitioner Petitioner George Sperle seeks review of the trial court s summary denial of ¶1 his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in that ruling. Therefore, although we accept review, we deny relief. Sperle argues the trial court erred in denying his petition for post-conviction ¶2 relief, in which he asserted multiple claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.1 Specifically, he asserts that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to properly request a mistrial and in neglecting to offer testimony regarding the operability of [a] firearm. We review a trial court s decision granting or denying post-conviction relief for an abuse of discretion. State v. Watton, 164 Ariz. 323, 325, 793 P.2d 80, 82 (1990). When a trial court s order denying a petition for post-conviction relief clearly identif[ies] the issues raised and [e]ach issue raised is correctly ruled upon in a fashion that will allow any court in the future to understand the resolution, then [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, 866 P.2d 1358, 1360 (App. 1993). Here, in a detailed minute entry, the trial court clearly and correctly addressed ¶3 the merits of the ineffective assistance claims Sperle raised in his petition for post-conviction 1 Sperle also mentions that the victim sent a letter to Sperle s trial attorney recanting much of his trial testimony. But Sperle fails to adequately develop any argument concerning this issue. Therefore, the issue is waived. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii) (iv); State v. Bolton, 182 Ariz. 290, 298, 896 P.2d 830, 838 (1995). 2 relief.2 We will not repeat that analysis here. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying post-conviction relief on Sperle s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Therefore, although we grant the petition for review, we deny relief. ____________________________________ JOSEPH W. HOWARD, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: ____________________________________ JOHN PELANDER, Chief Judge ____________________________________ PHILIP G. ESPINOSA, Judge 2 To the extent that the trial court relied on testimony presented at trial in rendering its decision, we note that the trial transcripts are not included in the record. We therefore presume the contents of the missing transcripts support the trial court s ruling. See State v. Wilson, 179 Ariz. 17, 19 n.1, 875 P.2d 1322, 1324 n.1 (App. 1993). 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.
