Court Opinion

ID: 9397446
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-25 16:04:05.615171+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:25.948622
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

                      EDGAR GUTIERREZ, Petitioner.

                         No. 1 CA-CR 23-0035 PRPC
                              FILED 5-25-2023

      Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Yuma County
                         No. S1400CR201900534

                   The Honorable Roger A. Nelson, Judge

                  REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

                                   COUNSEL

Yuma County Attorney’s Office, Yuma
By Jon R. Smith
Counsel for Respondent

E.M. Hale Law, PLLC, Lakeside
By Elizabeth M. Hale
Counsel for Petitioner
                            STATE v. GUTIERREZ
                            Decision of the Court

                       MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Paul J. McMurdie, Judge Michael J. Brown, and Judge
Michael S. Catlett delivered the following decision.

PER CURIAM:

¶1            Petitioner Edgar Gutierrez seeks review of the superior
court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant
to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32. 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 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