Court Opinion

ID: 4363467
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-01-31 16:02:23.18355+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:17:21.421178
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.
               ANTHONY JAMES MERRICK, III, Petitioner.

                         No. 1 CA-CR 18-0656 PRPC
                              FILED 1-31-2019

    Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                         No. CR2010-005367-001
                  The Honorable Janet E. Barton, Judge

                  REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

                                   COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Diane Meloche
Counsel for Respondent

Anthony James Merrick, III, Yuma
Petitioner
                             STATE v. MERRICK
                             Decision of the Court

                       MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Paul J. McMurdie, Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge
Jennifer B. Campbell delivered the following decision.

PER CURIAM:

¶1            Petitioner Anthony Merrick 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 Merrick's second
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. 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