IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION TWO

THE STATE OF ARIZONA,

Respondent,
v.
MARK LYLE BARRICKLOW,
Petitioner.
No. 2 CA-CR 2015-0236-PR
Filed October 26, 2015

THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND

MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24.

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Pima County

No. CR20122386001
The Honorable Scott Rash, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

Mark L. Barricklow, Buckeye

In Propria Persona

STATE v. BARRICKLOW
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Howard authored the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Vsquez and Judge Kelly1 concurred.

H O W A R D, Judge:
1
Petitioner Mark Barricklow seeks review of the trial
courts order summarily dismissing his petition for post-conviction
relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. We will not disturb
that ruling unless the court clearly has abused its discretion. See
State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390, 4, 166 P.3d 945, 948 (App. 2007). We
find no such abuse here.
2
In 2012, a jury found Barricklow guilty of disorderly
conduct and attempted aggravated assault with a deadly weapon or
dangerous instrument, both dangerous offenses. The trial court
sentenced Barricklow to concurrent prison terms, the longer of
which is twelve years, with credit for 180 days served. We affirmed
Barricklows convictions and sentences on appeal.
State v.
Barricklow, No. 2 CA-CR 2012-0515 (memorandum decision filed
Oct. 29, 2013). In 2014, Barricklow filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief, arguing his sentences were illegal, and trial and
appellate counsel were ineffective. The trial court dismissed his
petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing, concluding
Barricklow had failed to present a colorable claim for relief and that
no purpose would be served by any further proceedings. This
petition for review followed.
3
On review, Barricklow reasserts some of the arguments
he raised in his petition below and asks [t]his Court to review the
Rule 32, [its] arguments, discussion of the issues and the documents
1The

Hon. Virginia C. Kelly, a retired judge of this court, is

called back to active duty to serve on this case pursuant to orders of
this court and our supreme court.
2

STATE v. BARRICKLOW
Decision of the Court
that [Barricklow] submitted to the trial court in the 40 exhibits. 2 He
maintains [i]t would be cumulative and unnecessary for [him] to
reargue the entire argu[]ment and to [] reexhibit [sic] all of the
evidence that [he] put into his Rule 32, and essentially asks us to
examine the 379 pages of exhibits attached to his petition below to
determine how [he] was denied[] a fair trial.
4
Notably, Barricklow does not explain how the trial
court erred in rejecting his claims, but instead uses his petition for
review to reargue generally the claims he raised below. See Ariz. R.
Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1)(iv) (petition for review shall contain reasons why
the petition should be granted). And, to the extent Barricklow
attempts to challenge the courts finding that his claims essentially
express dissatisfaction with the trial strategy employed by trial
counsel, we determine the court correctly rejected his arguments
for this reason. See State v. Beaty, 158 Ariz. 232, 250, 762 P.2d 519, 537
(1988) (Matters of trial strategy and tactics are committed to
defense counsels judgment and cannot serve as basis for claim of
ineffective assistance).
5
In any event, we find no error in the trial courts ruling.
We therefore adopt the courts thorough analysis. See State v.
Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 274, 866 P.2d 1358, 1360 (App. 1993) (when
court correctly rules on issues raised in a fashion that will allow
any court in the future to understand the resolution [, n]o useful
purpose would be served by this court rehashing the trial courts
correct ruling in a written decision).
6

Accordingly, we grant review but deny relief.

Although Barricklow refers to forty exhibits, the record

appears to contain thirty-eight.
2