Court Opinion

ID: 6060916
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-13 16:01:52.328896+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:02:11.806489
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

                  MICHAEL JOHN JAKSCHT, Petitioner.

                         No. 1 CA-CR 21-0304 PRPC
                              FILED 1-13-2022

    Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                         No. CR2010-118085-001
                  The Honorable Joseph C. Welty, Judge

                  REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

                               APPEARANCES

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Amanda M. Parker
Counsel for Respondent

Michael Jakscht, Buckeye
Petitioner
                            STATE v. JAKSCHT
                            Decision of the Court

                       MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge D. Steven Williams, Judge David B. Gass, and Judge James
B. Morse Jr. delivered the decision of the Court.

PER CURIUM:

¶1             Petitioner Michael Jakscht seeks review of the superior court’s
order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. This is 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, 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, and the petition
for review. The petitioner has failed to show an abuse of discretion.

¶4            For the foregoing reasons, this court grants review but denies
relief.

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

                                         2