Court Opinion

ID: 4272364
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-05-03 18:04:36.253261+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:59:51.248438
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  UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

                       JOE CERVANTES, JR., Petitioner.

                          No. 1 CA-CR 18-0167 PRPC
                               FILED 5-3-2018

            Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County
                         No. P1300CR20081426
                 The Honorable Michael R. Bluff, Judge

                   REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

                                    COUNSEL

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

Joe Cervantes, Jr., Florence
Petitioner
                          STATE v. CERVANTES
                           Decision of the Court

                      MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Jon W. Thompson, Judge Peter B. Swann, and Judge James
P. Beene delivered the decision of the Court.

P E R C U R I U M:

¶1            Petitioner Joe Cervantes, Jr. 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 the petitioner’s third
successive 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, 576-77, ¶ 19 (2012). It is the petitioner’s
burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion in denying the
petition. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 538, ¶ 1 (App. 2011).

¶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 shown an abuse of discretion.

¶4            Accordingly, we grant review and deny relief.

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

                                        2