Court Opinion

ID: 4377038
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-03-14 16:02:13.698744+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:42.276881
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

                DENIEL DESMOND BRANDON, Petitioner.

                         No. 1 CA-CR 18-0761 PRPC
                             FILED 3-14-2019

           Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                      No. CR2003-014305-001 DT
              The Honorable Stephen M. Hopkins, Judge

                  REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

                                   COUNSEL

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

Deniel Desmond Brandon, Buckeye
Petitioner Pro Per

                       MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge James B. Morse Jr., Judge Jon W. Thompson and Vice Chief
Judge Peter B. Swann delivered the decision of the court.
                            STATE v. BRANDON
                            Decision of the Court

PER CURIAM:

¶1            Petitioner Deniel Desmond Brandon 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 petitioner'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 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 but deny relief.

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

                                         2