Court Opinion

ID: 4246440
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-02-20 17:04:43.913032+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:23.954486
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

                      DENNIS PAUL EDDY, Petitioner.

                         No. 1 CA-CR 17-0488 PRPC
                             FILED 2-20-2018

    Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Coconino County
                           No. CR1985-11929
                  The Honorable Mark R. Moran, Judge

                  REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

                                   COUNSEL

Coconino County Attorney’s Office, Flagstaff
By William P. Ring
Counsel for Respondent

Dennis Paul Eddy, Buckeye
Petitioner

                       MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Jon W. Thompson, Judge Peter B. Swann, and Judge James
P. Beene delivered the decision of the Court.
                              STATE v. EDDY
                            Decision of the Court

P E R C U R I A M:

¶1            Petitioner Dennis Paul Eddy 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 the petitioner’s latest
successive 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, 576-77, ¶ 19 (2012). It is the petitioner’s
burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion in denying the
petition. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 538, ¶ 1 (App. 2011).

¶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 shown an abuse of discretion.

¶4            Accordingly, we grant review and deny relief.

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

                                         2