Court Opinion

ID: 9363796
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-17 18:02:17.874048+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:34.342508
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

                       OCTAVIO GARCIA, Petitioner.

                         No. 1 CA-CR 22-0024 PRPC
                             FILED 1-17-2023

    Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                         No. CR2013-003468-001
                  The Honorable Gregory Como, Judge

                  REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

                                   COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Douglas Gerlach
Counsel for Respondent

The Ferragut Law Firm PC, Phoenix
By Ulises A. Ferragut, Jr.
Counsel for Petitioner
                              STATE v. GARCIA
                             Decision of the Court

                       MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Brian Y. Furuya, Judge Jennifer B. Campbell, and Judge
Paul J. McMurdie delivered the following decision.

PER CURIAM:

¶1          Petitioner Octavio Garcia 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 Garcia’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 the 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 relief, and the petition
for review, response, and reply. We find the petitioner has not established
an abuse of discretion.

¶4            We grant review but deny relief.

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

                                          2