Filed: Aug. 26, 2014
Latest Update: Aug. 26, 2014
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES, See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24. MEMORANDUM DECISION HOWARD, Judge. 1 Following a jury trial, petitioner Mark Lugo was convicted of sexual conduct with a minor, attempted sexual conduct with a minor, sexual abuse, and child molestation. He seeks review of the trial court's orders denying relief pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P., and h
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES, See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24. MEMORANDUM DECISION HOWARD, Judge. 1 Following a jury trial, petitioner Mark Lugo was convicted of sexual conduct with a minor, attempted sexual conduct with a minor, sexual abuse, and child molestation. He seeks review of the trial court's orders denying relief pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P., and hi..
More
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES, See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
HOWARD, Judge.
¶1 Following a jury trial, petitioner Mark Lugo was convicted of sexual conduct with a minor, attempted sexual conduct with a minor, sexual abuse, and child molestation. He seeks review of the trial court's orders denying relief pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P., and his motion for rehearing.
¶2 This court affirmed Lugo's convictions on appeal but remanded the case for resentencing on two of the four counts. State v. Lugo, No. 2 CA-CR 92-0561 (memorandum decision filed Jan. 31, 1994). Lugo was resentenced in August 1995. This court granted partial relief on review in Lugo's first post-conviction proceeding. State v. Lugo, No. 2 CA-CR 2007-0336-PR (memorandum decision filed Apr. 30, 2008). We denied relief on review in three subsequent proceedings. State v. Lugo, No. 2 CA-CR 2011-0283-PR (memorandum decision filed Jan. 12, 2012); State v. Lugo, No. 2 CA-CR 2011-0041-PR (memorandum decision filed May 19, 2011); State v. Lugo, No. 2 CA-CR 2009-0201-PR, ¶¶ 2-3 (memorandum decision filed Dec. 2, 2009). This is Lugo's fifth post-conviction proceeding.
¶3 The trial court identified the claims Lugo raised, reviewing them and resolving them correctly in a manner that has permitted this court to review them. See State v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 274, 866 P.2d 1358, 1360 (App. 1993). The same is true with regard to the ruling on Lugo's motion for rehearing, which the trial court denied in an eight-page minute entry addressing the merits of some of the claims that a different judge previously had found precluded under Rule 32.2. Although the court need not have addressed the merits of the claims raised, Lugo has not persuaded this court that the trial court abused its discretion. We see no purpose in restating the rulings here, rather we adopt them. Id.
¶4 We grant the petition for review but deny relief.
