NOT FOR PUBLICATION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)(1); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

KELLY, Presiding Judge.

¶1 Petitioner William Hayes Jr. 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). Hayes has not sustained his burden of establishing such abuse here.

¶2 After two jury trials, Hayes was convicted of multiple offenses relating to the sexual assault of three women. The trial court sentenced him to a total of 31.5 years' imprisonment. This court affirmed his convictions and sentences on appeal. State v. Hayes, Nos. 2 CA-CR 2013-0287 & 2 CA-CR 2013-0288 (consolidated) (memorandum decision filed July 7, 2014).

¶3 Hayes thereafter initiated a proceeding for post-conviction relief, arguing in his petition that he had received ineffective assistance of trial counsel in that counsel failed to "effectively cross-examine[]" or recall one of the victims to question her about statements made to a nurse who had examined her, did not obtain an expert witness to testify about or provide information to counsel as to microscopic injuries and the dye used to test for them, and "acquiesced" to the court's ordering a mistrial as to two of the counts. The trial court summarily denied relief.

¶4 On review, Hayes repeats his claims that counsel was ineffective in not cross-examining the victim and in failing to investigate or present evidence relating to the dye and argues the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing his petition without a hearing. Because he does not discuss his claim related to the mistrial, we do not address it. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1) (petition for review shall contain "[t]he reasons why the petition should be granted" and "specific references to the record"); State v. Rodriguez, 227 Ariz. 58, n.4, 251 P.3d 1045, 1048 n.4 (App. 2010) (declining to address argument not raised in petition for review); see also State v. Bolton, 182 Ariz. 290, 298, 896 P.2d 830, 838 (1995) ("Failure to argue a claim on appeal constitutes waiver of that claim.").

¶5 As to Hayes's remaining claims, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in summarily denying his petition for post-conviction relief. The court clearly identified the claims Hayes 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 Therefore, although we grant the petition for review, we deny relief.