Court Opinion

ID: 6221756
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-02-15 15:01:39.213639+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:57:24.172417
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  UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

                     DWAYNE ALVIN PITRE, Petitioner.

                          No. 1 CA-CR 21-0444 PRPC
                                FILED 2-15-2022

     Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                            No. CR2002-001911
                  The Honorable Laura M. Reckart, Judge

                   REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

                                    COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Amanda M. Parker
Counsel for Respondent

Barton & Storts, P.C., Tucson
By Brick P. Storts, III
Counsel for Petitioner
                              STATE v. PITRE
                            Decision of the Court

                       MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz, Judge Samuel A. Thumma, and Judge
Michael J. Brown delivered the decision of the Court.

PER CURIAM:

¶1             Petitioner Dwayne Alvin Pitre seeks review of the superior
court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. This is
petitioner’s second successive 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, and the petition
for review. We find that petitioner has not established an abuse of
discretion.

¶4            We grant review and deny relief.

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

                                          2