NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

v.

RITO SAUCEDO, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 16-0239 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Yuma County

No. S1400CR201100294

The Honorable John Neff Nelson, Judge, Retired

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Yuma County Attorney's Office, Yuma

By Charles V.S. Platt

Counsel for Respondent

Elizabeth M. Brown, Attorney at Law, Goodyear

By Elizabeth M. Brown

Counsel for Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen delivered the decision of the court, in 

which Judge Michael J. Brown and Judge Jennifer B. Campbell joined. 

FILED 8-24-2017
STATE v. SAUCEDO

Decision of the Court

2

J O H N S E N, Judge:

¶1 Rito Saucedo petitions for review from the dismissal of his

petition for post-conviction relief. We have considered the petition for 

review and, for the reasons stated, grant review and deny relief.

¶2 Saucedo pled guilty to attempted transportation of a narcotic 

drug for sale, use of wire communications in a drug-related transaction, and 

money laundering. The superior court sentenced Saucedo to concurrent 

prison terms, the longest of which was seven years.

¶3 Saucedo filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief 

raising claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The superior court 

summarily dismissed the petition, ruling that Saucedo failed to state a 

colorable claim for relief. This petition for review followed. Absent an 

abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will not disturb the superior

court's ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief. State v. Gutierrez, 229 

Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012).

¶4 The superior court did not abuse its discretion in denying 

relief. Saucedo argues his counsel was ineffective in failing to challenge the 

constitutionality of the placement of a tracking device on his tractor-trailer. 

In evaluating this contention, the superior court reviewed an affidavit by 

Saucedo's trial counsel and concluded that the decision not to challenge the 

tracking device was a tactical decision made based on counsel's conclusion 

that the use of the device would support Saucedo's defense. The court also 

concluded that when the device was installed, "there was no clear 

constitutional requirement" precluding installation of such a device, and 

moreover, affidavits offered by law enforcement officers "show[ed] good 

faith." Saucedo also argued counsel was ineffective in failing to "demand[] 

the testimony" of an analyst who created laboratory reports showing the 

presence of drugs and in failing to advise Saucedo that the laboratory 

reports could be challenged as hearsay in the absence of such testimony. 

The superior court concluded that Saucedo presented "no authority . . . that 

trial counsel's acceptance of those lab reports as legitimate and authentic 

would be deficient representation" or that trial counsel acted unreasonably

in doing so.

¶5 In summarily dismissing the petition, the superior court 

issued a ruling that clearly identified, fully addressed and correctly 

resolved Saucedo's claims. Further, the court did so in a thorough, wellreasoned manner that will allow any future court to understand the court's 

rulings. Under these circumstances, "[n]o useful purpose would be served 
STATE v. SAUCEDO

Decision of the Court

3

by this court rehashing the trial court's correct ruling in a written decision." 

State v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 274 (App. 1993). We therefore adopt the 

superior court's ruling.

¶6 Accordingly, we grant review, but deny relief.