Court Opinion

ID: 9894732
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-02 18:03:31.371297+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:31.457816
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

                 JOHN EDWARD LOFTON, JR., Petitioner.

                         No. 1 CA-CR 23-0269 PRPC
                               FILED 11-02-2023

    Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                           No. CR 1987-009127
               The Honorable Ronee Korbin Steiner, Judge

                  REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

                                   COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Faith Cheree Klepper
Counsel for Respondent

The Stavis Law Firm, PLLC, Scottsdale
By Christopher Stavris
Counsel for Petitioner

                       MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge David D. Weinzweig, Judge Michael S. Catlett, and Judge
Maria Elena Cruz delivered the decision of the Court.
                              STATE v. LOFTON
                             Decision of the Court

PER CURIAM:

¶1             Petitioner John Edward Lofton, Jr. seeks review of the
superior court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. This
is petitioner’s fourth successive 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, and the petition
for review. 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: TM

                                          2