Court Opinion

ID: 9904973
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-28 16:03:15.480482+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:07.033131
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

                    AVTAR SINGH GREWAL, Petitioner.

                         No. 1 CA-CR 23-0352 PRPC
                             FILED 11-28-2023

    Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                         No. CR2007-006487-001
                   The Honorable Dean M. Fink, Judge

                  REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

                                   COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Douglas Gerlach
Counsel for Respondent

Michael J. Dew, Attorney at Law, Phoenix
By Michael J. Dew
Counsel for Petitioner
                            STATE v. GREWAL
                            Decision of the Court

                       MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Jennifer B. Campbell, and Judges Kent E. Cattani and Anni
Hill Foster delivered the decision of the Court.

PER CURIAM:

¶1             Petitioner Avtar Singh Grewal 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 (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, the superior
court’s order denying the petition for post-conviction relief, the petition for
review, and State’s response. We find that petitioner has not established an
abuse of discretion.

¶4            We grant review but deny relief.

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

                                         2