Court Opinion

ID: 4259329
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-03-29 15:04:22.484196+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:28:47.151683
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  UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

                       JUSTIN JACOB JOYCE, Petitioner.

                          No. 1 CA-CR 17-0692 PRPC
                              FILED 3-29-2018

     Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                            No. CR2000-014807
                  The Honorable Randall H. Warner, Judge

                   REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

                                    COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix
By Diane Meloche
Counsel for Respondent

Justin Jacob Joyce, Safford
Petitioner

                        MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen, Judge Kent E. Cattani and Judge
Jennifer M. Perkins delivered the decision of the Court.
                             STATE v. JOYCE
                            Decision of the Court

PER CURIAM:

¶1            Petitioner Justin Jacob Joyce 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 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, ¶ 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. 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