Court Opinion

ID: 4239140
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-01-25 15:04:16.409498+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:23:16.910585
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

                   TODD STERLING TRACY, Petitioner.

                         No. 1 CA-CR 17-0325 PRPC
                              FILED 1-25-2018

     Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Mohave County
                         No. S8015CR201201255
              The Honorable Steven F. Conn, Judge (Retired)

                  REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

                                   COUNSEL

Mohave County Attorney’s Office, Kingman
By Matthew J. Smith
Counsel for Respondent

Todd Sterling Tracy, Florence
Petitioner

                       MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop, Judge Jennifer B. Campbell, and
Judge Paul J. McMurdie delivered the decision of the Court.
                             STATE v. TRACY
                            Decision of the Court

PER CURIAM:

¶1            Petitioner Todd Sterling Tracy 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 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, 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: AA

                                         2