NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZ. R. SUP. CT. 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT

AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS 

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

v.

GEORGE SOTO, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 12-0221 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

Nos. CR2005-011607-001; CR2005-115961-001; CR2006-006229-001; 

CR2006-106964-001 & CR2007-006196-041

The Honorable Andrew G. Klein, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By E. Catherine Leisch

Counsel for Respondent

Gail Gianasi Natale, Phoenix

Counsel for Petitioner
STATE v. SOTO

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Jon W. Thompson delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Andrew W. Gould and Judge Peter B. Swann joined.

T H O M P S O N, Judge:

¶1 Petitioner George Soto seeks review of the trial court’s 

summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. We review 

the summary dismissal of a petition for post-conviction relief for abuse of 

discretion. State v. Watton, 164 Ariz. 323, 325, 793 P.2d 80, 82 (1990)

(citations omitted). We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Rule of 

Criminal Procedure 32.9(c).

¶2 Soto was indicted in five separate cases for assorted criminal 

activities between December 2004 and April 2006. Soto resolved four of 

the cases by guilty pleas and was found guilty of multiple charges in the 

fifth case following trial. At a consolidated sentencing hearing on April 

30, 2007, the trial court imposed concurrent prison terms in all five 

matters, the longest being twenty-two years.

¶3 Soto’s convictions and sentences on the charges that went to 

trial were affirmed on appeal. State v. Soto, 1 CA-CR 07-0447 & 1 CA-CR 

07-0866 (consolidated) (Ariz. App. Mar. 17, 2009) (mem. decision). His 

first Rule 32 petition for post-conviction relief filed with respect to the four 
STATE v. SOTO

Decision of the Court

3

cases resolved by guilty pleas was summarily denied on December 4, 

2008. Soto did not seek review of the dismissal of that Rule 32 proceeding. 

¶4 On August 29, 2011, Soto filed the petition for postconviction relief presently before the court raising claims of newly 

discovered evidence and ineffective assistance of counsel in all five cases 

centered on an allegation that he had recently discovered that he suffers 

from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Soto alleged that his PTSD 

was the result of a gunshot wound to the head that predates the incidents 

giving rises to the charges against him and that his counsel failed to raise -

- or even acknowledge -- his mental and psychological impairments. In 

support of his petition, Soto submitted a medical records analysis 

prepared by a psychiatric R.N. 

¶5 The trial court summarily dismissed the petition based on a 

finding that it failed to present colorable claims of either newly discovered 

evidence or ineffective assistance of counsel. In explaining its ruling, the 

trial court observed that the psychiatric R.N. drew no conclusion of how 

the PTSD could have affected Soto’s cases but instead stated merely that 

there is not enough information in the chart to make any conclusion about 

whether his mental impairments affected his ability to cooperate with 

counsel or to understand court processes. The trial court further noted 

that the petition presented mere speculation on Soto’s part that but for 
STATE v. SOTO

Decision of the Court

4

counsel’s failure to investigate his mental problems, the outcome would 

have been different. 

¶6 In his petition for review, Soto repeats the arguments made 

below and argues the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing his 

petition without granting an evidentiary hearing. We disagree. In a 

thorough, well-reasoned minute entry, the trial court identified the claims 

Soto raised and resolved them correctly and in a manner permitting this 

court to review and determine the propriety of that order. See State v. 

Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 274, 866 P.2d 1358, 1360 (App. 1993). The trial 

court acted within its discretion in concluding that the claims raised were 

not colorable. See State v. D’Ambrosio, 156 Ariz. 71, 73, 750 P.2d 14, 16 

(1988) (“A decision as to whether a petition for post-conviction relief 

presents a colorable claim is, to some extent, a discretionary decision for 

the trial court.”) (citation omitted). No purpose would be served by 

repeating the court's ruling in its entirety, and we therefore adopt it. See 

Whipple, 177 Ariz. at 274, 866 P.2d at 1360.

¶7 Because Soto failed to present a colorable claim for relief, the 

trial court did not abuse its discretion when it summarily dismissed his 

petitioner for post-conviction relief. 

¶8 We grant review and deny relief.
STATE v. SOTO

Decision of the Court

5