Court Opinion

ID: 4432217
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-08-22 17:02:27.822139+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:53:08.001938
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

                 THOMAS ORVILLE BASTIAN, Petitioner.

                         No. 1 CA-CR 18-0496 PRPC
                              FILED 8-22-2019

    Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                        No. CR 2007-124159-003
                The Honorable Arthur T. Anderson , Judge

                  REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

                               APPEARANCES

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Andrea L. Kever
Counsel for Respondent

Thomas Orville Bastian, Florence
Petitioner
                            STATE v. BASTIAN
                            Decision of the Court

                       MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Jennifer B. Campbell, Judge Maria Elena Cruz, and Judge
Diane M. Johnsen delivered the decision of the Court.

PER CURIAM:

¶1            Petitioner Thomas Orville Bastian 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
fourth 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, ¶ 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            For the foregoing reasons, we grant review and deny relief.

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

                                         2