Court Opinion

ID: 9393936
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-11 17:03:40.080191+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:56.417988
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

                     FOX JOSEPH SALERNO, Petitioner.

                         No. 1 CA-CR 23-0020 PRPC
                              FILED 5-11-2023

    Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                           No. CR2000-017362
              The Honorable Scott Sebastian Minder, Judge

                  REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

                                   COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Krista Wood
Counsel for Respondent

Fox Joseph Salerno, Limon, Colorado
Petitioner
                            STATE v. SALERNO
                            Decision of the Court

                       MEMORANDUM DECISION

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

PER CURIAM:

¶1           Petitioner Fox Joseph Salerno 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 twelfth
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 dismissing the petition for post-conviction and petition.
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