ECKERSTROM, Chief Judge
THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24.
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2002095105
The Honorable Michael W. Kemp, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
Qurian V. Roberson, Buckeye
In Propria Persona
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Chief Judge Eckerstrom authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Howard and Judge Vásquez concurred.
ECKERSTROM, Chief Judge:
¶1 Petitioner Qurian Roberson seeks review of the trial court's order denying his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. "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). Roberson has not sustained his burden of establishing such abuse here.
¶2 After a jury trial, Roberson was convicted of weapons misconduct, two counts of armed robbery, and three counts of aggravated assault. The trial court imposed consecutive and concurrent sentences totaling 31.5 years' imprisonment. The convictions and sentences were affirmed as corrected on appeal. State v. Roberson, No. 1 CA-CR 03-0560 (Ariz. App. Feb. 3, 2005) (mem. decision).
¶3 Roberson thereafter sought post-conviction relief, and the trial court denied relief. This court, however, granted relief on review on Roberson's "claim of ineffective assistance of counsel as it relates to the imposition of consecutive sentences." We remanded the matter to the trial court, and the court again imposed sentences totaling 31.5 years' imprisonment. The sentences were affirmed on appeal. State v. Roberson, No. 1 CA-CR 10-0655 (Ariz. App. Jun. 28, 2011) (mem. decision).
¶4 Roberson thereafter undertook at least four unsuccessful proceedings for post-conviction relief. In his current petition for post-conviction relief filed in July 2015, Roberson raised claims relating to his indictment and arraignment and various
claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court summarily denied relief.
¶5 On review Roberson contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying relief, but we cannot agree. The court clearly identified the claims Roberson 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 rehashing the trial court's correct ruling in a written decision").
¶6 Although we grant the petition for review, we deny relief.