Court Opinion

ID: 8212273
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-10-06 17:01:57.604318+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:42:09.032963
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  UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

                       JOHN K. INGERSOLL, Petitioner.

                          No. 1 CA-CR 21-0318 PRPC
                               FILED 10-06-2022

     Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                            No. CR1990-012756
                  The Honorable Roy C. Whitehead, Judge

                   REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

                                    COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Krista Wood
Counsel for Respondent

John K. Ingersoll, Tucson
Petitioner

                        MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Jennifer M. Perkins, Judge James B. Morse Jr., and Judge
Michael J. Brown delivered the decision of the Court.
                           S TATE v. INGERSOLL
                            Decision of the Court

PER CURIAM:

¶1             Petitioner John K. Ingersoll seeks review of the superior
court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. 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, 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, 260 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, and petitioner’s supplemental legal authority. 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:    JT

                                         2