Court Opinion

ID: 6328806
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-03-31 17:02:45.383432+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:45.172778
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  UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

                  RALPH FRANK ESPOSITO, JR., Petitioner.

                          No. 1 CA-CR 21-0536 PRPC
                               FILED 3-31-2022

     Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
             Nos. CR2014-001312-001 and CR2013-442655-001
                  The Honorable Kerstin G. LeMaire, Judge

                   REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

                                    COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Amanda M. Parker
Counsel for Respondent

Ralph Frank Esposito, Jr., Tucson
Petitioner
                             STATE v. ESPOSITO
                             Decision of the Court

                       MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Paul J. McMurdie delivered the Court’s decision, in which
Vice Chief Judge David B. Gass and Judge Angela K. Paton joined.

PER CURIAM:

¶1          Petitioner Ralph Esposito 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 fifth
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 the 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, and the petition
for review. We find the 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