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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

RODRICK LYNN JOHNSON, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 16-0006 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2011-114400-002

The Honorable Pamela Hearn Svoboda, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix

By David R. Cole

Counsel for Respondent

Rodrick Lynn Johnson, Buckeye

Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION

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

which Judge Patricia K. Norris and Judge Jennifer B. Campbell joined. 
STATE v. JOHNSON

Decision of the Court

2

J O H N S E N, Judge:

¶1 Rodrick Lynn Johnson petitions for review of the summary 

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 A jury convicted Johnson of possession of dangerous drugs 

for sale, possession of narcotic drugs for sale and possession of marijuana. 

The superior court sentenced him as a repetitive offender to concurrent 

prison terms, the longest of which was 18 years. This court affirmed the 

convictions and sentences on appeal. State v. Johnson, 1 CA-CR 13-0571 

(Ariz. App. Nov. 20, 2014) (mem. decision).

¶3 Johnson thereafter filed a timely petition for post-conviction 

relief, raising claims of insufficient evidence, ineffective assistance of 

counsel, disclosure violations and actual innocence. The superior court 

summarily dismissed the petition, ruling that the claims of insufficient 

evidence and disclosure violations were precluded and that Johnson failed 

to state a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel or actual 

innocence. This petition for review followed.

¶4 On review, Johnson argues the superior court erred in 

denying relief on his claim of actual innocence. He also argues he was 

erroneously deprived of his right to a 12-person jury and requests that this 

court review his case for fundamental error. We review a superior court's 

denial of post-conviction relief for abuse of discretion. State v. Bennett, 213 

Ariz. 562, 566, ¶ 17 (2006).

¶5 The superior court did not abuse its discretion in summarily 

dismissing the petition for post-conviction relief. The court issued a ruling 

that clearly identified, fully addressed and correctly resolved all the claims 

Johnson raised. 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 served 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 trial 

court's ruling.

¶6 We need not address the claim raised by Johnson in his

petition for review with respect to the size of the jury because he did not 

raise this issue below. A petition for review may not raise issues not first 

presented to the superior court. State v. Ramirez, 126 Ariz. 464, 468 (App.

1980); see also Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii) (requiring petition for review to 
STATE v. JOHNSON

Decision of the Court

3

contain "issues which were decided by the trial court and which the 

defendant wishes to present to the appellate court for review"). In any 

event, contrary to Johnson's argument, the trial transcript reflects that 12 

persons were seated on his jury.

¶7 We further decline Johnson's request to engage in 

fundamental error review of his case. There is no fundamental error review 

in a post-conviction relief proceeding. State v. Smith, 184 Ariz. 456, 460

(1996).

¶8 For the foregoing reasons, we grant review but deny relief.