Court Opinion

ID: 4659505
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-02-11 16:03:01.586245+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:01:51.241752
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

                 KEVIN MICHAEL TAUBMAN, Petitioner.

                         No. 1 CA-CR 20-0351 PRPC
                              FILED 2-11-2021

    Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                         No. CR2011-005457-002
            The Honorable Warren J. Granville, Judge, Retired

                  REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

                                   COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Lisa Marie Martin
Counsel for Respondent

The Ferragut Law Firm, P.C., Phoenix
By Ulises A. Ferragut, Jr.
Counsel for Petitioner
                            STATE v. TAUBMAN
                            Decision of the Court

                       MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge David B. Gass, Judge Michael J. Brown, and Judge David
D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court.

PER CURIAM:

¶1              Petitioner Kevin Michael Taubman 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, ¶ 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, the petition for
review, and the response. 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