Court Opinion

ID: 4684494
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-05-06 16:11:07.909227+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:11.918198
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

                   KEITH STANLEY AVANTS, Petitioner.

                         No. 1 CA-CR 20-0522 PRPC
                              FILED 5-6-2021

     Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Mohave County
                            No. CR2002-0400
                  The Honorable Derek C. Carlisle, Judge

                  REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

                                   COUNSEL

Mohave County Attorney’s Office, Kingman
By Matthew J. Smith
Counsel for Respondent

Keith Stanley Avants, Florence
Petitioner
                            STATE v. AVANTS
                            Decision of the Court

                       MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge David B. Gass, Judge Michael J. Brown, and Judge David
D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court.

PER CURIAM:

¶1            Petitioner Keith Stanley Avants 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, ¶ 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, the petition for
review, response, and reply. We find that petitioner has not established an
abuse of discretion.

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

     .

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

                                         2