Court Opinion

ID: 9909863
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-14 16:02:27.205536+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:48:47.331812
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  UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

                    RANDOLPH JACKSON JR., Petitioner.

                          No. 1 CA-CR 23-0248 PRPC
                               FILED 12-12-2023

     Petition For Review from the Superior Court in Yavapai County
                        No. P1300CR201400227
                  The Honorable Michael R. Bluff, Judge

                   REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

                                    COUNSEL

Yavapai County Attorney’s Office, Prescott
By Vincent Ware
Counsel for Respondent

Randolph Jackson Jr., Tucson
Petitioner

                        MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge James B. Morse Jr., Judge Cynthia J. Bailey, and Judge
Brian Y Furuya delivered the decision of the Court.
                             STATE v. JACKSON
                             Decision of the Court

PER CURIAM:

¶1            Petitioner Randolph Jackson Jr. 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 his fifth 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, 538, ¶ 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, petition for review,
and response. Petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion.

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

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

                                          2