Court Opinion

ID: 9393939
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-11 17:03:42.989097+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:56.406147
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

                   GARY LANE EISENMANN, Petitioner.

                         No. 1 CA-CR 22-0514 PRPC
                             FILED 5-11-2023

    Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
              Nos. CR2012-009381-001, CR2014-001133-001
            The Honorable Kathleen H. Mead, Judge (Retired)

                  REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

                                   COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Daniel Strange
Counsel for Respondent

Gary Lane Eisenmann, Eloy
Petitioner
                           STATE v. EISENMANN
                            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 Gary Lane Eisenmann 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 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, as well as the
superior court’s order dismissing the petition for post-conviction, the
petition, response, reply, and additional related filings. 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