Court Opinion

ID: 4305679
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-08-21 15:01:56.65168+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:09:34.570111
License: Public Domain

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  UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

                          STANLEY HALL, Petitioner.

                          No. 1 CA-CR 18-0276 PRPC
                               FILED 8-21-2018

     Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                          No. CR2015-001191-001
         The Honorable Richard L. Nothwehr, Judge, Pro Tempore

                   REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

                                    COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix
By Lisa Marie Martin
Counsel for Respondent

Stanley Hall, Florence
Petitioner

                        MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen, Judge Paul J. McMurdie and Judge
David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court.
                              STATE v. HALL
                            Decision of the Court

PER CURIAM:

¶1          Petitioner Stanley Hall seeks review of the superior court's
order denying his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to
Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is petitioner's first petition.

¶2             Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will
not disturb a superior court's ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief.
State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012). It is petitioner's burden to
show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition
for post-conviction relief. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, ¶ 1 (App. 2011)
(petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of discretion on review).

¶3            We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior
court's order denying the petition for post-conviction relief, the petition for
review, the response and the reply. We find that petitioner has not
established an abuse of discretion.

¶4            For the foregoing reasons, we grant review and deny relief.

                           AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
                           FILED: AA

                                          2