STATE OF ARIZONA v. LARRY LEE WASHINGTON

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 SEP -1 2010 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. LARRY LEE WASHINGTON, Petitioner. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 CA-CR 2010-0183-PR DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY Cause No. CR16604 Honorable John S. Leonardo, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED Larry Lee Washington Tucson In Propria Persona V Ã S Q U E Z, Presiding Judge. ¶1 In 1986, a jury found petitioner Larry Lee Washington guilty of first-degree burglary, kidnapping, sexual assault, and theft by control, all committed in October 1985. The trial court sentenced Washington to consecutive and concurrent, aggravated, enhanced prison terms totaling sixty years. We affirmed Washington s convictions and sentences on appeal. State v. Washington, No. 2 CA-CR 4527-2 (memorandum decision filed Jan. 8, 1987). Washington has filed several petitions for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. We denied relief on two of those petitions, denied review on another petition, and granted relief in part on another petition. This petition for review followed the trial court s denial of relief on Washington s fifth1 petition for postconviction relief and his motion for reconsideration, filed in propria persona. We will not disturb a trial court s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief absent a clear abuse of discretion. State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390, ¶ 4, 166 P.3d 945, 948 (App. 2007). We find no abuse here. ¶2 Washington argues, as he did below, that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge his consecutive sentences, asserting that concurrent sentences should have been imposed because the offenses occurred on the same occasion. He asks this court to remand the matter to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing. The trial court denied relief in a thorough minute entry order and did so again when it denied Washington s motion for reconsideration, making it clear that Washington s ineffective assistance claim was precluded because he could have raised it in a previous postconviction petition. See Rule 32.2(a)(3). It also noted that his claim was not, in any event, colorable. In its orders, the court clearly identified Washington s argument and correctly ruled on it in a manner that will allow any future court to understand its resolution. We therefore approve and adopt the trial court s rulings and find no purpose 1 Although the record is not entirely clear, for purposes of this decision we presume the trial court is correct that this is Washington s fifth post-conviction proceeding. 2 would be served in setting forth the orders in their entirety in this decision. See State v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 274, 866 P.2d 1358, 1360 (App. 1993). ¶3 Because we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Washington s petition for post-conviction relief and his motion for reconsideration, we grant the petition for review and deny relief. /s/ Garye L. VÃ¡squez GARYE L. VÃ SQUEZ, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ Peter J. Eckerstrom PETER J. ECKERSTROM, 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.