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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

JEFFREY JAMES FAULKNER, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 16-0426 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR 1994-009172

The Honorable Dean M. Fink, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix

By Diane Meloche

Counsel for Respondent

Jeffrey James Faulkner, Buckeye

Petitioner

FILED 9-12-2017
STATE v. FAULKNER

Decision of the Court

2

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.

J O H N S E N, Judge:

¶1 Petitioner Jeffrey James Faulkner petitions this court for 

review from the dismissal of his successive 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 Faulkner of two counts of aggravated 

assault, both dangerous offenses, and the superior court imposed 

consecutive terms of 35 years' imprisonment. On direct appeal, this court 

reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial. State v. Faulkner, 1 

CA-CR 96-0265 (Ariz. App. Apr. 29, 1997) (mem. decision).

¶3 On remand, Faulkner was convicted again and sentenced to 

two consecutive terms of 21 years' imprisonment. He filed an appeal, but 

later moved to voluntarily dismiss the appeal and the motion was granted. 

State v. Faulkner, 1 CA-CR 98-0380 (Ariz. App. Sept. 18, 1998) (order).

¶4 Faulkner then timely filed his first post-conviction relief 

petition, challenging his sentences. The superior court denied relief, but on 

review this court granted relief in part and remanded for resentencing. 

State v. Faulkner, 1 CA-CR 99-0564 (Ariz. App. Mar. 30, 2000) (mem. 

decision). Faulkner was resentenced in January of 2001. On appeal, this 

court affirmed the resentencing. State v. Faulkner, 1 CA-CR 01-0099 (Ariz. 

App. Oct. 25, 2001) (mem. decision).

¶5 Since that time, Faulkner has filed seven petitions for postconviction relief, four petitions for review and one special action. In this 

petition, filed in June of 2015, Faulkner re-alleges claims of ineffective 

assistance of trial and appellate counsel, illegal sentence and significant 

change in the law. He also presented claims of ineffective assistance of postconviction relief counsel, actual innocence and newly discovered evidence.

The superior court found that the claims were untimely, precluded or not 

cognizable or colorable. This petition for review followed.
STATE v. FAULKNER

Decision of the Court

3

¶6 The superior court dismissed the proceeding in an order that 

clearly identified and correctly ruled upon the issues raised.1 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). Therefore, we adopt the superior court's ruling.

¶7 For the reasons stated above, we grant review but deny relief.

 

1 To the extent Faulkner's claim of a change in the law was brought 

pursuant to State v. Phillips, 202 Ariz. 427 (2002), we note this claim was 

presented and rejected in his second PCR proceeding. Faulkner then 

petitioned this court for review, but review was denied. State v. Faulkner, 1 

CA-CR 03-0311 (Ariz. App. June 29, 2004) (order). As noted by the superior 

court, Faulkner's addition of Arizona Revised Statutes section 13-303(A)(3) 

to the claim, without any explanation "why a statute expanding accomplice 

liability would have affected his conviction or sentence," did not establish a 

colorable claim.