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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE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 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

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; RELI EF 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 C ounsel 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 8-24-2017STATE v. SAUCEDO Decision of the Court

2 J O H N S E N , Judge :

¶1 Rito Saucedo petitions for review from th e 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 communic ation s 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 Sauc e do 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 conclude d 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 clea r constitutional requirement" precluding installation of such a device, and moreover, affidavits offered by law enforceme nt officers "show [ed] good faith." Saucedo also argued counsel was ineffective in failing to "demand[] the testi mony" of an analyst w ho 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 a cted unreasonably in doing so.

¶5 In summarily dismissing the petition , the superior court issued a ruling that clea r ly identified, fully addressed and correctly resolved Saucedo's claims. Further, the court did so in a thorough, well

reasoned manner that will allow any future court to understand the court ' s rulings. Under these circumstances, " [n]o useful purpose would be servedSTATE v. SAUCEDO Decision of the Court

3 by this court rehashing the trial court ' s correc t 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.