Court Opinion

ID: 9909864
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-14 16:02:28.230467+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:50:16.797378
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  UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

                   JAIME BRAVO GUERRERO, Petitioner.

                          No. 1 CA-CR 23-0194 PRPC
                               FILED 12-12-2023

     Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                          No. CR2015-143236-001
                 The Honorable David W. Garbarino, Judge

                   REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

                                    COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Philip D. Garrow
Counsel for Respondent

Jaime Bravo Guerrero, Kingman
Petitioner

                        MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge James B. Morse Jr., Judge Cynthia J. Bailey, and Judge
Brian Y Furuya delivered the decision of the Court.
                            STATE v. GUERRERO
                             Decision of the Court

PER CURIAM:

¶1            Petitioner Jaime Bravo Guerrero 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 his third 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 and petition for
review. Petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion.

¶4            For the foregoing reasons, we grant review but deny relief.

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

                                          2