Court Opinion

ID: 4566450
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-09-17 18:02:16.431449+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:52:16.116828
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

                       EDWARD KAPLAN, Petitioner.

                         No. 1 CA-CR 20-0232 PRPC
                              FILED 9-17-2020

     Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Yavapai County
               No. V1300CR201780327, V1300CR201780328
                  The Honorable Michael R. Bluff, Judge

                  REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

                                   COUNSEL

Yavapai County Attorney’s Office, Prescott
By Michael R. Morrison
Counsel for Respondent

Edward Kaplan, Tucson
Petitioner

                       MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Jennifer M. Perkins, Judge David B. Gass, and Judge
Michael J. Brown delivered the decision of the Court.
                            STATE v. KAPLAN
                            Decision of the Court

PER CURIAM:

¶1          Petitioner Edward Kaplan 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 first 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 relief, and the petition
for review. 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