Court Opinion

ID: 5140064
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-12-23 16:02:45.173236+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:21.325936
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

                SUSAN ANNE FLECKENSTEIN, Petitioner.

                         No. 1 CA-CR 21-0243 PRPC
                              FILED 12-23-2021

    Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                           No. CR1993-090294
              The Honorable Jennifer C. Ryan-Touhill, Judge

              REVIEW GRANTED AND RELIEF DENIED

                                   COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Jeffrey R. Duvendack
Counsel for Respondent

The Nolan Law Firm PLLC, Mesa
By Todd E. Nolan
Counsel for Petitioner
                         STATE v. FLECKENSTEIN
                           Decision of the Court

                       MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Randall M. Howe, Judge Brian Y. Furuya, and Judge
Michael J. Brown delivered the decision of the court.

PER CURIAM:

¶1              Petitioner Susan Anne Fleckenstein seeks review of the
superior court’s order denying her petition for post-conviction relief, filed
pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. 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, the petition for
review, and the response. We find that petitioner has not established an
abuse of discretion.

¶4            For the foregoing reasons, we grant review and deny relief.

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

                                         2