Court Opinion

ID: 9909862
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-14 16:02:25.286389+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:50:16.869287
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

                  LEVI EULALIO MADRIGAL, Petitioner.

                         No. 1 CA-CR 23-0206 PRPC
                              FILED 12-12-2023

      Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Yuma County
                         No. S1400CR201700005
                  The Honorable David M. Haws, Judge

                  REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

                                   COUNSEL

Yuma County Attorney’s Office, Yuma
By Charles Platt
Counsel for Respondent

DM Cantor, Phoenix
By Courtney R. Sullivan David E. Campbell
Counsel for Petitioner
                            STATE v. MADRIGAL
                             Decision of the Court

                       MEMORANDUM DECISION

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

PER CURIAM:

¶1            Petitioner Levi Eulalio Madrigal 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 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, petition for review,
response, and reply. 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