Court Opinion

ID: 9374530
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-23 16:02:17.640646+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:51.551038
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

                 GERALD MELVIN CALMESE, Petitioner.

                         No. 1 CA-CR 22-0429 PRPC
                             FILED 2-23-2023

    Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                         No. CR2010-008080-001
                  The Honorable Daniel G. Martin, Judge

                  REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

                                   COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Robert E. Prather
Counsel for Respondent

Gerald Melvin Calmese, Eloy
Petitioner

                       MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Jennifer M. Perkins, Judge Angela K. Paton, and Judge D.
Steven Williams delivered the decision of the Court.
                            STATE v. CALMESE
                            Decision of the Court

PER CURIAM:

¶1           Petitioner Gerald Melvin Calmese seeks review of the
superior court’s order dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief,
filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is his fifth
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, petition, and
response. Petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion.

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

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

                                         2