 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Ray8/21/2003
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court
In this petition for review of the trial court's order summarily denying post-conviction relief, petitioner Thomas Emmett Ray challenges the prison terms the court imposed after revoking his probation. Absent a clear abuse of discretion, we will not disturb its order. See State v. Schrock, 149 Ariz. 433, 719 P.2d 1049 (1986).
After a jury trial was held in his absence in July 1996, Ray was convicted of aggravated driving while under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI) with a suspended license and criminal damage. In July 1998, the trial court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed Ray on supervised probation for ten years. In January 2000, the state filed a petition to revoke probation, and in March, Ray admitted having violated the conditions of his probation. The court reinstated Ray on probation with new conditions, including a fourteen-day term in the Pima County Jail. The state filed a second petition to revoke probation in March 2001. After Ray admitted having tested positive for marijuana on sixteen different occasions, the trial court revoked his probation and sentenced him to aggravated, consecutive prison terms of three years for the DUI count and two years for the criminal damage count. In his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Rule 32.1, Ariz. R. Crim. P., 17 A.R.S., Ray challenged the sentences, claiming the court had erred by imposing consecutive terms.
The trial court concluded that petitioner had failed to raise a colorable claim for relief in a thorough minute entry that clearly identifies the claims raised sufficient to permit appellate review. See State v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 866 P.2d 1358 (App. 1993). The trial court's findings of fact are sufficiently supported by the record before us, and its legal conclusions are correct. No purpose would be served by rehashing the trial court's order; therefore, we adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law. See Whipple.
We grant review, but finding no abuse of discretion by the trial court, we deny relief.
J. WILLIAM BRAMMER, JR., Presiding Judge
CONCURRING:
M. JAN FLÓREZ, Judge
JOSEPH W. HOWARD, Judge
|