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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

STEVEN RAY BROWN, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 13-0763 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR 2011-139687-001 

The Honorable Susanna C. Pineda, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By E. Catherine Leisch

Counsel for Respondent

Steven Ray Brown, Florence

Pro Se Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Andrew W. Gould delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge Peter B. Swann joined.
STATE v. BROWN

Decision of the Court

2

G O U L D, Judge:

¶1 Steven Ray Brown petitions for review of the summary 

dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, 

Ariz. R. Crim. P. We have considered his petition for review and, for the 

reasons stated, grant review but deny relief.

¶2 Brown pled guilty to kidnapping, a class two felony with one 

historical felony conviction, and attempted sexual assault, a class three

felony and non-repetitive offense. The trial court sentenced Brown in 

accordance with the terms of the plea agreement to an aggravated 11.75-

year prison term for the kidnapping followed by lifetime probation for the 

attempted sexual assault. 

¶3 Brown filed a timely notice of post-conviction relief, and 

appointed counsel thereafter informed the trial court that he could find no 

claims to be raised in a Rule 32 proceeding. Brown then filed a pro se

petition for post-conviction relief alleging claims of ineffective assistance of

counsel and illegal sentence. The trial court summarily dismissed the 

petition, ruling that Brown failed to state a colorable claim of relief. This 

petition for review followed. 

¶4 On review, Brown argues that the trial court erred in ruling 

that he failed to state a colorable claim for relief. We review the summary 

dismissal of a petition for post-conviction relief for abuse of discretion. 

State v. Bennett, 213 Ariz. 562, 566, ¶ 17 (2006).

¶5 In his petition for review, Brown states that the facts material 

to the issues he is presenting for review are set forth in his petition for postconviction relief and his reply to the State’s response filed in the superior 

court and asks this court “to obtain the entire record from the superior court 

and refer to the appropriate sections thereof to make its determinations.” 

A petition for review may not simply incorporate by reference any issue or 

argument; instead, the petition must set forth specific claims, present 

sufficient argument supported by legal authority, and include citation to 

the record. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1); State v. Moore, 125 Ariz. 528, 529 

(App. 1980); see also State v. Smith, 184 Ariz. 456, 460 (1996) (holding there is 

no fundamental error review in a post-conviction relief proceeding). 

“[C]ompliance with Rule 32 is not a mere formality.” Canion v. Cole, 210 

Ariz. 598, 600, ¶ 11 (2005). A petitioner must “strictly comply” with Rule 

32 in order to be entitled to relief. Id.
STATE v. BROWN

Decision of the Court

3

¶6 In any event, we have reviewed Brown’s claims and the trial 

court’s ruling and conclude the court thoroughly addressed and correctly 

rejected the claims in a manner “that will allow any court in the future to 

understand the resolution.” State v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 274 (App. 1993). 

No purpose would be served by repeating the trial court’s ruling in its 

entirety, and we therefore adopt it. See Id.

¶7 Brown’s complaint that the trial court addressed his claim of

ineffective assistance of counsel by each of its three component parts rather

than as a single claim is without merit. Where the underlying issues on 

which a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is based lacks substance, 

there can be no ineffective assistance by counsel in failing to raise the issues

or challenge the trial court’s rulings. See State v. Borbon, 146 Ariz. 392, 399 

(1985) (holding counsel not ineffective “for failing to make an essentially 

futile request”); State v. Noleen, 142 Ariz. 101, 106 (1984) (holding failure to 

engage in futile act not ineffective assistance of counsel). Because the three 

issues on which Brown bases his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel 

are all without merit, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding 

that Brown failed to state a colorable claim for relief.

¶8 For the above reasons, although we grant review, we deny 

relief.