Court Opinion

ID: 5121851
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-10-28 18:03:14.334852+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:54.351596
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

                    RONALD LEE COLLINS, Petitioner.

                         No. 1 CA-CR 20-0511 PRPC
                              FILED 10-28-2021

    Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                         No. CR2003-005767-001
                 The Honorable Michael J. Herrod, Judge

                  REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

                                   COUNSEL

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

Ronald Lee Collins, Florence
Petitioner
                            STATE v. COLLINS
                            Decision of the Court

                       MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Cynthia J. Bailey, Judge Jennifer M. Perkins and Judge
Maria Elena Cruz delivered the decision of the Court.

PER CURIAM:

¶1             Petitioner Ronald Lee Collins seeks review of the superior
court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. This is
petitioner’s ninth 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. 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: AA

                                         2