Court Opinion

ID: 4470918
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-01-09 18:02:07.965237+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:54.559628
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

              CLEMENTE MARTINEZ PEREYRA, Petitioner.

                         No. 1 CA-CR 19-0267 PRPC
                              FILED 1-9-2020

     Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Yavapai County
                         No. P1300CR201700857
                   The Honorable Tina R. Ainley, Judge

                  REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

                                   COUNSEL

Yavapai County Attorney’s Office, Prescott
By Sheila Sullivan Polk
Counsel for Respondent

Clemente Martinez Pereyra, Florence
Petitioner

                       MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz, Judge Kent E. Cattani and Judge D.
Steven Williams delivered the decision of the Court.
                            STATE v. PEREYRA
                            Decision of the Court

PER CURIAM:

¶1              Petitioner Clemente Martinez Pereyra 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. We find that petitioner has not established an abuse
of discretion.

¶4            We grant review but deny relief.

                          AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
                          FILED: AA

                                         2