STATE OF ARIZONA v. KETTISHA JONES
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 23 2010 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. KETTISHA JONES, Petitioner. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 CA-CR 2009-0312-PR DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY Cause No. CR-20064734 and CR-20064586 Honorable Howard Fell, Judge Pro Tempore REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED Law Office of Wanda K. Day By Wanda K. Day Tucson Attorney for Petitioner H O W A R D, Chief Judge. ¶1 Petitioner Kettisha Jones pleaded guilty to two counts of sale of a narcotic drug and was sentenced to two concurrent, presumptive prison terms, the longer of which is 9.25 years. She sought relief pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P., raising claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and newly discovered material facts. The trial court denied her petition for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing, finding Jones had failed to state a colorable claim for post-conviction relief. This petition for review followed. ¶2 Jones challenges the trial court s denial of post-conviction relief, claiming on review, as she did in the trial court, that trial counsel had rendered ineffective assistance during sentencing because 1) he did not correct a mistake in the presentence report, which stated she had not previously sought treatment for her drug problem and 2) counsel had told her that her maximum term of sentence would be six years. She also contends the court erred in denying relief on her claim that the evidence of her prior drug treatment was newly discovered evidence, as contemplated by Rule 32.1(e), and that, had it been considered during sentencing, she would have received a mitigated sentence. ¶3 We will not disturb a trial court s grant or denial of post-conviction relief absent a clear abuse of the court s discretion. State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390, ¶ 4, 166 P.3d 945, 948 (App. 2007). We cannot say the court abused its discretion in denying Jones s petition. The court clearly identified the claims Jones had raised and resolved them correctly in a thorough, well-reasoned minute entry, which we adopt. See State v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 274, 866 P.2d 1358, 1360 (App. 1993) (when trial court has correctly ruled 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 ). 2 ¶4 Finding no abuse of the trial court s discretion in summarily dismissing Jones s notice of post-conviction relief, we grant review but deny relief. /s/ Joseph W. Howard JOSEPH W. HOWARD, Chief Judge CONCURRING: /s/ Philip G. Espinosa PHILIP G. ESPINOSA, 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.
