Court Opinion

ID: 9926642
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-25 16:02:48.298526+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:48.425614
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

                      LEVONNIE WOOTEN, Petitioner.

                         No. 1 CA-CR 23-0294 PRPC
                             FILED 1-25-2024

    Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                           No. CR 94-003150
               The Honorable Lisa Ann Vandenberg, Judge

                  REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

                                   COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Christine Davis
Counsel for Respondent

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

                       MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown, Judge Andrew M. Jacobs, and Judge
Angela K. Paton delivered the decision of the Court.

PER CURIAM:

¶1            Petitioner Levonnie Wooten seeks review of the superior
court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. 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, 278 P.3d 1276, 1280 (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, P.3d 1102, 1103 (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, the petition for
review, the state’s response and petitioner’s reply. 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