Court Opinion

ID: 9388518
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-20 19:02:31.06642+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:20.826511
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

                        KIM C. KRISTOFF, Petitioner.

                         No. 1 CA-CR 22-0374 PRPC
                              FILED 4-20-2023

    Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                         No. CR2017-151263-001
             The Honorable Kathleen H. Mead, Judge, Retired

                  REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

                                   COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Quinton S. Gregory
Counsel for Respondent

Curry, Pearson & Wooten, P.L.C., Phoenix
By Kristen Curry
Counsel for Petitioner
                            STATE v. KRISTOFF
                            Decision of the Court

                       MEMORANDUM DECISION

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

PER CURIAM:

¶1          Petitioner Kris C. Kristoff 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, the petition for
review, the response, and the reply. 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