Court Opinion

ID: 9894731
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-02 18:03:30.418973+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:30.675214
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  UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

                       GARETT R. SOLIVEN, Petitioner.

                          No. 1 CA-CR 23-0222 PRPC
                               FILED 11-02-2023

     Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                          No. CR2015-002917-001
                  The Honorable Roy C. Whitehead, Judge

                   REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

                                    COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Phillip D. Garrow
Counsel for Respondent

Garett R. Soliven, Florence
Petitioner

                        MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge David D. Weinzweig, Judge Michael S. Catlett, and Judge
Maria Elena Cruz delivered the decision of the Court.
                             STATE v. SOLIVEN
                             Decision of the Court

PER CURIAM:

¶1             Petitioner Garett R. Soliven seeks review of the superior
court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. 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, 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. 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: TM

                                          2