Court Opinion

ID: 9394937
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-16 17:02:39.579644+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:04.289491
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  UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

                          TERRELL JONES, Petitioner.

                          No. 1 CA-CR 22-0410 PRPC
                                FILED 5-16-2023

     Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                          No. CR2013-444153-001
          The Honorable Annielaurie Van Wie, Judge Pro Tempore

                   REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

                                APPEARANCES

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

Terrell Jones, San Luis
Petitioner

                        MEMORANDUM DECISION

Vice Chief Judge David B. Gass, Judge Brian Y. Furuya, and Judge Andrew
M. Jacobs delivered the decision of the court.
                             STATE v. JONES
                            Decision of the Court

PER CURIAM:

¶1          Petitioner Terrell Jones seeks review of the superior court’s
order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. 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, 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